The Wikileaks Question

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:00 pm

http://counterpunch.org/floyd12072010.html

December 7, 2010
The Arrest of Julian Assange
Truth in Chains


By CHRIS FLOYD

London.

Well, they got him at last. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the target of several of the world’s most powerful governments, turned himself into British authorities today and is now at the mercy of state authorities who have already shown their wolfish – and lawless – desire to destroy him and his organization.

It has been, by any standard, an extraordinary campaign of vilification and persecution, wholly comparable to the kind of treatment doled out to dissidents in China or Burma. Lest we forget, WikiLeaks is a journalistic outlet – just like The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel, all of whom are even now publishing the very same material – leaked classified documents -- available on WikiLeaks. The website is also a journalistic outlet just like CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox and other mainstream media venues, where we have seen an endless parade of officials – and journalists! – calling for Assange to be prosecuted or killed outright. Every argument being made for shutting down WikiLeaks can – and doubtless will – be used against any journalistic enterprise that publishes material that powerful people do not like.

And the leading role in this persecution of truth-telling is being played by the administration of the great progressive agent of hope and change, the self-proclaimed heir of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama. His attorney general, Eric Holder, is now making fierce noises about the “steps” he has already taken to bring down WikiLeaks and criminalize the leaking of embarrassing information. And listen to the ferocious reaction of that liberal lioness, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who took to the pages of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to call for Assange to be put in prison – for 2,500,000 years:

“When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released his latest document trove—more than 250,000 secret State Department cables—he intentionally harmed the U.S. government. The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.

“The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." ... Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.”


So there you have it. Ten years for each offense; 250,000 separate offenses; thus a prison term of 2.5 million years. Naturally, tomorrow the same newspaper will denounce Feinstein for being such a namby-pamby terrorist-coddling pinko: “Why didn’t she call for Assange to be torn from limb to limb by wild dogs, as any right-thinking red-blooded American would do!?”

Meanwhile, corporate America and its international allies continue to do their bit. Joining PayPal and Amazon, who had already cut off their services to WikiLeaks, most of the remaining venues through which the internet journal is funded are also freezing out the organization -- MasterCard, Visa, and a Swiss bank that WikiLeaks used to process donations. All of these organizations are obviously responding to government pressure.

What is perhaps most remarkable is that this joint action by the world elite to shut down WikiLeaks – which has been operating for four years – comes after the release of diplomatic cables, not in response to earlier leaks which provided detailed evidence of crimes and atrocities committed by the perpetrators and continuers of Washington’s Terror War. I suppose this is because the diplomatic cables have upset the smooth running of the corrupt and cynical backroom operations that actually govern our world, behind the ludicrous lies and self-righteous posturing that our great and good lay on for the public. They didn’t mind being unmasked as accomplices in mass murder and fomenters of suffering and hatred; in fact, they were rather proud of it. And they certainly knew that their fellow corruptocrats in foreign governments – not to mention the perpetually stunned and supine American people – wouldn’t give a toss about a bunch of worthless peons in Iraq and Afghanistan getting killed. But the diplomatic cables have caused an embarrassing stink among the closed little clique of the movers and shakers. And that is a crime deserving of vast eons in stir – or death.

But before Assange was taken into custody, he fired off one last message to the world, in The Australian, a newspaper in his native land. With supreme irony, he tied WikiLeaks’ operation to the roots of the Murdoch media empire, which began by speaking truth to murderous and wasteful power – and now, of course, is one of the most powerful and assiduous instruments of murderous and wasteful power itself. Assange writes:

“IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide’s The News, wrote: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.” His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch’s expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

“Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public. … Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

“WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain ‘s The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

“Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be “taken out” by US Special Forces. Sarah Palin says I should be “hunted down like Osama bin Laden”, a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a “transnational threat” and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister’s office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.”


These, of course, are the defenders of Western Civilization, that pinnacle of human progress, that bulwark against savagery like murder and torture, that bastion of temperance and reason. But in his piece, Assange once more gives the lie to the ferocious canards of Feinstein, Holder, Obama and Palin about the “great harm” the leaks have done:

“WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

“US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn’t find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.”


Yes, how many thousands of people, how many tens of thousands, have been killed by our bipartisan Terror Warriors in the four years of WikiLeaks’ existence? How many millions have been “harmed” not only by the direct operations of the Terror War, but by the ever-widening, ever-deepening violence, hatred and turmoil it is spreading throughout the world? (Not to mention the accelerating collapse of American society, which has been financially, politically and morally bankrupted by the acceptance of aggressive war, torture, elite rapine and authoritarian rule.)

But none of the perpetrators of these acts, past or present, are in jail, or have even been prosecuted, or investigated, or inconvenienced in any way. Yet Assange is in a British prison tonight – and it is certainly not for the “sexual misconduct” charges that were filed against him in August, which then became the basis of an unprecedented worldwide arrest order of the type ordinarily reserved for war criminals – for those, in fact, accused of aggressive war, torture, elite rapine and authoritarian rule. The judge refused to grant bail, saying that Assange had “access to financial means” and could flee the country – perhaps a bitter joke on milord’s part, aimed at a man whose means of financial support are being systematically shut down by the most powerful government and corporate forces in the world. Journalist John Pilger and filmmaker Ken Loach were among those who appeared in court ready to stand surety for Assange, but to no avail.

WikiLeaks will doubtless try to struggle on. And Assange says he has given the entire diplomatic trove to 100,000 people. By dribs and drabs, shards of truth will get out. But the world’s journalists – and those persons of conscience working in the world’s governments – have been given a hard, harsh, unmistakable lesson in the new realities of our degraded time. Tell a truth that discomforts power, that challenges its domination over our lives, our discourse, our very thoughts, and you will be destroyed. No institution, public or private, will stand with you; the most powerful entities, public and private, will be arrayed against you, backed up by overwhelming violent force. This is where we are now. This is what we are now.

Chris Floyd is an American writer and frequent contributor to CounterPunch. His blog, “Empire Burlesque,” can be found at www.chris-floyd.com.


.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:33 pm

THIS. MEANS. YOU.


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301156

22 mins ago by ■ Samantha A. Torrence - 2 comments

Americans in danger of breaking law if they access WikiLeaks? +


According to Executive Order 13526 signed by President Obama in 2009, classified information does not lose its security classification even if it is leaked. So what are the dangers of accessing classified information?

Earlier this week reports surfaced that students at Columbia University received an email stating that accessing WikiLeaks or blogging, writing, twittering, or communicating the information contained on Wikileaks could possibly inhibit their access to future government jobs. The email posted by The Arabist cited information from an anonymous employee of the state department. The Gawker later reported that State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson said that she was unaware of the directive. However, she did say that people should be cautious when writing about wikileaks and to not cross the line between talking about a current event and disseminating or reading classified information. The Gawker report also included criticism against the United States military for restricting access to wikileaks and warning military members against accessing information.

From the Gawker:
A tipster wrote to tell us that "the Army's unclassified, NIPRNET network in Iraq has blocked every major news website because of the Wikileaks issue," going on to say that Foxnews.com, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Huffington Post, and a variety of other sites are blocked on the Army's unclassified network. A spokesperson for U.S. forces in Iraq disputed that claim, saying that the web sites aren't actually blocked—it's just that attempts to access them on the unclassified network brings up a warning page saying that you're about to break the law.


While the Gawker suggests that the military must have "lost it," there is a method behind the madness.

Ignorantia juris non excusat may not apply as harshly to the average United States Citizen, but the consequences for the military are far greater. Military computers are now issuing warnings to protect personnel from unwittingly breaking the law and perhaps endangering their career as well as their permanent record. Skeptics seem to believe this is a military ploy to keep soldiers from knowing the dastardly secrets of the upper chain of command, however the law which is being referenced for this action was enacting on December 29, 2009.

Executive Order 13526 Section 1.1(4)(c) is the most pertinent mandate to the issue of Wikileaks' published information.

Section 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:
(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.
Further Reading: [url]Executive Order 12958[/url]


In essence, the information on Wikileaks is still considered classified, and one must have the appropriate security clearance and need-to-know authorization to access it. The question that remains is, what will happen if an average citizen, or even a military member were to access or disseminate this information?

Military members who access Wikileaks or any other website to obtain the classified information from installation computers may be subject to prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Symantec corporation offers a clear explanation of the law and the punishments for breaking the law, without the legal jargon and referencing. If convicted one could face fines and jail times up to 10 years for a first offense, and 20 years for subsequent offenses.
Using a non military or government computer may or may not protect you from the above consequences. It is important to remember that while ignorance of the law is pitiable, it is still no excuse.

Civilians and military members accessing the information and forwarding, tweeting, or blogging about the wikileaks information, or sending links can be subject to punishment under 18 U.S.C. § 798 : US Code - Section 798: Disclosure of classified information. The law states that anyone who knowingly disseminates this information to unauthorized persons, upon conviction, will forfeit all property and monies obtained from the illegal action and be subject to jail time for up to 10 years.

The American government has not taken sweeping action against citizens or even military members for seeing information exposed through Wikileaks. That said, it's clear the framework for prosecution has been established and it's possible that consulting Wikileaks information could become illegal in the future.


-- Today, from Digital Journal, which is a platform for paying those who qualify as journalists under its process (which is unclear to me) a share of ad revenue by click (so click to reward the author!)

http://gawker.com/5705639/us-military-i ... -wikileaks

U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures—or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites—on unclassified networks get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.

The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole: First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that the State Department is warning prospective hires that if they write about Wikileaks on Twitter or Facebook, they might not get that job. And now Gawker has learned that military installations in Iraq are trying to keep soldiers from reading about Wikileaks.

A tipster wrote to tell us that "the Army's unclassified, NIPRNET network in Iraq has blocked every major news website because of the Wikileaks issue," going on to say that Foxnews.com, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Huffington Post, and a variety of other sites are blocked on the Army's unclassified network. A spokesperson for U.S. forces in Iraq disputed that claim, saying that the web sites aren't actually blocked—it's just that attempts to access them on the unclassified network brings up a warning page saying that you're about to break the law:

[U.S. forces in Iraq have] not blocked any news websites from being read. Because of the Wikileaks release of secret documents and their easy availability on the web, USF-I has posted a warning page NIPRNet computers go to first. This page simply warns the user that the website they are about to view may contain classified documents and that such documents should not be viewed, downloaded, or distributed on NIPR computers. There is a button at the bottom of this warning page that then allows the user to go to the website.




Click YES to potentially break the law and subject yourself to whatever sanctions such as expulsion from work, criminal prosecution and/or sudden disappearance your government may choose to apply.
- YES, THAT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR
- GET ME OUT OF HERE!

The feds have clearly lost it. Many of those soldiers receiving the warnings have security clearances that would have granted them access to the State Department cables before they were leaked. It's not the first time the military has threatened servicemembers with sanctions if the view Wikileaks documents—back in August, the Department of the Navy issued guidance warning sailors and marines against looking at the Afghanistan documents leaked by the site—but it seems to be the first time it's tried to prevent them from reading news stories about leaked documents.

Not even Social Security Administration employees are safe from the intimidation: The Administration has reportedly sent an alert to all its employees claiming that the Wikileaks documents "remain classified and SSA employees should not access, download, or transmit them. Individuals may be subject to applicable federal criminal statutes for unlawful access to or transmission of classified information."

And the State Department has—informally, it seems—been putting out word that people who write about the Wikileaks cables on Twitter or Facebook shouldn't bother applying for State Department jobs in the future. According to the Arabist, a blog on Arab culture and politics, Columbia University's career services department sent an alert to students relating a call the office got from a Columbia alumnus and State Department employee:

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.


To repeat: Do NOT make comments about Wikileaks on Twitter or mention them at all or you will be considered a security risk and never be good enough to work at the state department.

We contacted the State Department and Columbia University for comment, but haven't heard back. Likewise with the Social Security Administration.

Update:

State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson got back to us. She said that she's unaware of any State employees issuing any "directives" to any schools about what students should and shouldn't write on social networks. But would State look unfavorably upon a prospective employee who had written about the leaked cables on Facebook? "To talk about current events is one thing," she said. "Would talking about it make you ineligible for a job at the State Department? No. But to go into detail, and propagate information that was illegally obtained—I don't think that's a good move for anyone. Not Julian Assange, not Wikileaks, and not any U.S. citizen."

Send an email to the author of this post at john@gawker.com.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:43 pm

From The Onion, today:

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011

Source: U.S. Department of State

"The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age."


Only kidding. It wasn't from The Onion, it was in fact from the US State Department:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm
Last edited by MacCruiskeen on Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby Simulist » Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:06 pm

It may be late autumn in most of the Northern Hemisphere, but in America it sounds like springtime for Hitler.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:22 pm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

I still find it hard to believe that the State Department chose to publish that press release today, of all days. They really know no shame.

Crowley continues:
... Highlighting the many events surrounding the celebration will be the awarding of the UNESCO Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize at the National Press Club on May 3rd. This prize, determined by an independent jury of international journalists, honors a person, organization or institution that has notably contributed to the defense and/or promotion of press freedom, especially where risks have been undertaken.

The Newseum will host the first two days of events, which will engage a broad array of media professionals, students, and citizen reporters on themes that address the status of new media and internet freedom, and challenges and opportunities faced by media in our rapidly changing world.

The State Department looks forward to working with UNESCO and the U.S. executive committee spearheaded by the Center for International Media Assistance at the National Endowment for Democracy, IREX, and the United Nations Foundation and the many civil society organizations they have brought together in support of the organization of events unfolding in Washington.

For further information regarding World Press Freedom Day Events for program content, please visit the World Press Freedom Facebook page http://www.connect.connect.facebook.com/WPFD2011


Is it too much to hope that Assange and Wikileaks will win that prize? It would be even better if Philip J. Crowley had to award it.

On Edit: I don't do Facebook. But what will happen to anyone who accesses that Facebook page and proposes Assange/Wikileaks for the UNESCO Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize? At any rate, I hope plenty of people will have the guts to do so. And I have a feeling it won't take long before that World Press Freedom Facebook page is discreetly taken down.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby AlicetheKurious » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:01 pm

Wikileaks Reprised – A Whiff Of… What?
by Dr. Alan Sabrosky on December 7, 2010| Sabbah Report |


I have followed the unfolding teapot-tempest drama of the latest Wikileaks release with a certain bemusement, accompanied by a growing suspicion shared with others that all is not as it seems with these supposed revelations. But my initial impression, based of course on what I am reading in the mainstream and alternative media and not in the cables themselves, is that it is surprising how little damaging material is there about much of the world. Secretary Clinton cannot be happy at having the UN people know what she told her people there to do, of course, and there is a great deal to whet assorted salacious appetites. More substantive issues will doubtless emerge, but I expect most if not all to be embarrassing rather than destructive.

The Cables

Perhaps the principal reason for this largely titillating, trivial aspect of so many of the released cables is the cables themselves. It is worth understanding that in the US government, even material that is taken from newspapers and clipped together can end up being classified "Secret" or "Confidential." Really important or sensitive material (as in truly "national security" sensitive) is classified "Top Secret" or above.

From what the press is reporting about this Wikileaks "dump," perhaps 10% are Secret or Confidential, the rest Unclassified, and nothing is Top Secret or above. This reflects the VERY low-level diplomatic "gossip column" character of much of what has been released and discussed in the media so far. But I suspect the general reaction of politicians and diplomats everywhere, all of whom send the same type of cables about others, will be a blend of public umbrage and private amusement, coupled with overtures to Ukraine for nursing support.

The Middle East Exception

The one striking exception in all of this global tour de farce <sic.> is the Middle East. Certainly, even aside from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange's fulsome praise of Binyamin Netanyahu, what is said and what is not represent the message Israel and its partisans in the US Government (itself heavily Zionist and "Israel First" in orientation) want the world to hear, believe and accept. The message coming across in the US diplomatic cables could have been designed and drafted by Avigdor Lieberman, and who knows? It may have been….

The overt theme in the Middle East cables consists of a blend of attacks on prominent political figures in Turkey and Iran, coupled with critical and disparaging commentaries about their actual or alleged policies and ambitions. One might think that the architects of the Ottoman and Persian Empires in their times of splendor were simultaneously on the move again, with everything between them (except poor, brave, steadfast and enduring Israel, of course) trembling in fear and awe.

Complementing this is a region-wide belief attributed to many Arab leaders of the need for stronger action, including military strikes, to thwart Iran's regional and especially nuclear ambitions – precisely what Israel has been saying all along. Now, this may be true. I know, for example, that the Sunni leadership in many of those countries have their own concerns about Iran, just as Iran's current leadership have with some of them.

But at least two things cause me to question this supposed thesis. One is the odd attribution in at least one of the cables to an Arab leader of a remark on Iran being an "existential threat." Yet no one except Israel and its proponents refer to any other country as an "existential threat" to anyone, suggesting quite clearly that either some of the released cables regarding Iran are forgeries, or they were deliberately cast in terms to create an impression that Arab leaders really want the US and/or Israel to attack Iran, true or not.

And the Israeli Exception

The other part of the covert theme is the apparent absence of anything tough on Israel, which means that anything of the sort is Top Secret or better, was excised from the cables that were released, or simply doesn't matter at all to anyone in or out of the Middle East. The Arab nations for many years have feared a real nuclear threat from Israel, not a fabricated threat by Iran, but nothing like that comes across, despite 60-plus years of hostility from most to Israel and its ambitions.

Far more significant to me is the utter lack to date of scathing commentaries on Israel and its policies, leadership and actions from SOMEWHERE in the world. Even if Arab leaders felt there was no point in doing so with the Americans, most others would not feel so constrained. Something surely must have come to the attention of the US ambassadors to (e.g.) Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Ireland, just to name a few of the many who have bitterly condemned Israel, and especially the disgusting duo of Netanyahu and Lieberman to say nothing of their predecessors, for what they have done to Palestine and the Lebanon; for Operation Cast Lead; for the settlements; for flagrant violations of UN Resolutions and the murder of UN officials; for Israel's hostility to the Goldstone Report; for the blockade; for land expropriation; and for sheer thuggery and brutality.

Surely something so scathing would have been communicated back to Washington
, alongside which Iran and its president would come off smelling like several bouquets of roses – slightly wilted roses, perhaps, but vastly better than the Israeli stinkpot.

Reprise

But nothing like that is there, or at least has yet surfaced, which makes me increasingly inclined to see this as just another game of rhetorical smoke and mirrors, with a lot of real cables and real victims (like the poor US soldier who presumably gave Assange at least some of the cables), but with many or most of the Middle East cables "cooked" if not fabricated outright.

So these, at least, are probably the handiwork of Israeli-Americans or just Israelis putting their own spin on things, included in a mass of otherwise legitimate cables as camouflage and for validation. An Australian news website concluded that "[the] WikiLeaks cables [are] the 9/11 of world diplomacy." Too, too true – same source, different vehicle and venue, all helping pave the road to yet another needless war in Israel's service, this time against Iran. The gods weep – but not, presumably, Yahweh.

* Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. Link
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby barracuda » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:12 pm

It sounds like Alan Sabrosky (Marine Corps veteran and Ex-Director of Studies At The US Army War College) and Gordon Duff (Marine Corps veteran, international banker and counter insurgency - defense technology consultant) are reading from the exact same playbook.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby bks » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:13 pm

ahab wrote:

The current story, and the way it's playing out, does seem very neat and almost pre-packaged in some ways, but sometimes that's the way real life goes.


This is true, and like you I don't think this is staged or pre-packaged. Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter. In the highly unlikely event that Julian Assange and Wikileaks were 'invented', then it is because the threat that a real Wikileaks-type operation would represent was considered sufficiently present to require their invention. Certainly they are needed, given the operation of state. Certainly learning about the operation of state in detail is entirely legitimate, and would be the impetus for a rethinking of diplomatic policy in a functioning democracy. So wikileaks may as well be real, even if it was cooked up inside some intelligence agency somewhere. Real or not, the state's response [flexing its muscles, and the media shutting up about it] was going to be the same, and that is the story.

I don't think Assange's fate isn't going to deter future serious whistleblowers. What hurts most is to see, one more time, just how bereft 21st century USA is of its founding ideals. There is just no constituency among the influential to reconsider any aspects of oligarchical rule. No revelation would be embarrassing enough not to be spun as a new imperative that this or that freedom be curtailed. It's just over, and there needs to be a lot of new thinking about how a behemoth like this can be influenced in the direction of the rule of law.
bks
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby nathan28 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:19 pm

Leading Virulently Pro-Israel US Senator Calls for Leading Virulently Pro-Israel US Newspaper to Be Charged under Espionage Act.


Definitely a sign of a Mossad psy-op, and not a bunch of crazies freaking the fuck out. Man, I hope we don't blow our cover on this one!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/lieberman-times-crime-wikileaks_n_793293.html

Joe Lieberman: New York Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing WikiLeaks Cables

Senator Joe Lieberman said that the New York Times may have committed a crime by accepting and publishing the State Department cables from WikiLeaks, and should be investigated for potential violations of the Espionage Act.
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby cptmarginal » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:51 pm

Edge.org is doing another one of their question round-ups of big thinkers. The page should fill up relatively soon with lots of answers:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/hillis1 ... index.html

The question of secrecy in the information age is clearly a deep social (and mathematical) problem, and well worth paying attention to.

When does my right to privacy trump your need for security?; Should a democratic government be allowed to practice secret diplomacy? Would we rather live in a world with guaranteed privacy or a world in which there are no secrets? If the answer is somewhere in between, how do we draw the line?

I am interested in hearing what the Edge community has to say in this regard that's new and original, and goes beyond the political. Here's my question:

WHO GETS TO KEEP SECRETS?

I hope to hear from you.

— Danny Hillis


Sounds like fun
The new way of thinking is precisely delineated by what it is not.
cptmarginal
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby vanlose kid » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:52 pm

barracuda wrote:It sounds like Alan Sabrosky (Marine Corps veteran and Ex-Director of Studies At The US Army War College) and Gordon Duff (Marine Corps veteran, international banker and counter insurgency - defense technology consultant) are reading from the exact same playbook.


the one that says the US is innocent and the j-w is behind everything...

illustration from this Duff article at vnn: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/11 ... ed-states/

Image

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby Simulist » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:55 pm

Those pictures are disgusting.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby 82_28 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:56 pm

bks wrote:
ahab wrote:

The current story, and the way it's playing out, does seem very neat and almost pre-packaged in some ways, but sometimes that's the way real life goes.


This is true, and like you I don't think this is staged or pre-packaged. Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter. In the highly unlikely event that Julian Assange and Wikileaks were 'invented', then it is because the threat that a real Wikileaks-type operation would represent was considered sufficiently present to require their invention. Certainly they are needed, given the operation of state. Certainly learning about the operation of state in detail is entirely legitimate, and would be the impetus for a rethinking of diplomatic policy in a functioning democracy. So wikileaks may as well be real, even if it was cooked up inside some intelligence agency somewhere. Real or not, the state's response [flexing its muscles, and the media shutting up about it] was going to be the same, and that is the story.

I don't think Assange's fate isn't going to deter future serious whistleblowers. What hurts most is to see, one more time, just how bereft 21st century USA is of its founding ideals. There is just no constituency among the influential to reconsider any aspects of oligarchical rule. No revelation would be embarrassing enough not to be spun as a new imperative that this or that freedom be curtailed. It's just over, and there needs to be a lot of new thinking about how a behemoth like this can be influenced in the direction of the rule of law.


Apart from having my back of the napkin ideas about the "figure of Assange" condescended upon by some esteemed members -- fun ideas of intrigue I thought. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. Some have even PMed me telling me that my line of thought is actually, temporarily at least, valid. I'm not here to be dick and glad slap people with certitude. I'm just contributing. We all think in our own ways.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:02 pm

vanlose kid wrote:
barracuda wrote:It sounds like Alan Sabrosky (Marine Corps veteran and Ex-Director of Studies At The US Army War College) and Gordon Duff (Marine Corps veteran, international banker and counter insurgency - defense technology consultant) are reading from the exact same playbook.


the one that says the US is innocent and the j-w is behind everything...

illustration from this Duff article at vnn: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/11 ... ed-states/

[On Edit: disgusting pictures deleted. Available at the link for anyone who feels the need.]

*


Wait a minute, vanlose. I'm certainly no fan of Gordon "Once a Marine, always a Marine!" Duff, and those pictures are indeed disgusting. But you omitted the caption he provided -

RACE HATRED, AMERICAN KRYPTONITE


- and his commentary:

Forcing America to return to a draft and begin a major war, one America can never really win as with Iraq and Afghanistan and, let us not forget Vietnam, is something absolutely vital to hang around the neck of a Democrat, especially one of African American ancestry. Anyone who doesn’t think the real heart of American politics has always been racism is a liar. Family values means “white” family values. African Americans know shame at the relief they have felt seeing Muslims targeted for persecution. Every political position in today’s America is derived from institutionalized racism, be it immigration, health care or “constitution.”

When a return to the “constitution” is brought up, by people who wouldn’t know the document from a Croatian take-out menu, the reality is always race, fear, hate and envy, the glue that holds American society prisoner. Decades ago, and even more recently during our last presidential election, African Americans were represented as animals, “goyim” to the Jews [sic]. Now we play “Kill the camel jockey.” Is this why the Christianized army we sent to Afghanistan murders innocent civilians for sport?


This is a long thread, and most people are probably just skimming it, so let's have accurate quotes if we're going to have quotes at all.
Last edited by MacCruiskeen on Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby AlicetheKurious » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:16 pm

Thanks for beating me to the punch, MacCruisken. That post by Vanlose Kid was so dishonest it got my heart pounding with rage. Yours helped me calm down.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 182 guests