The Wikileaks Question

[82_28]

Nobody can defend fuck one about shit that we're hearing as of now. But speculation is free. Speculate. Jack, as much as I enjoy everything you write, you got me all wrong. To say that I don't appreciate being "spoken" to as though I'm some kind of an idiot, doesn't help. Do you not think that I've run over every known scenario in my head at this point about this? Jesus. Just take the information as it comes. There are a shit ton of variables. You know it and everybody else does too -- there are variables here. I only happen to think it is curious that all of this, an entire planet of over SIX BILLION PEOPLE, happens to all be paying attention supposedly to one LONE MYSTERIOUS MAN who brings down the whole of the USA's intelligence apparatuses. Perhaps you may believe or find it a suitable snark against me, because you have chosen the path you want to go with about all this, but lives are still on the line. They aren't the lives we're thinking of though via the media's imbalances. I really fucking wish my command of English and usage could make this a little more clear. I will continue to try. But I am getting no where. I'm not a fucking idiot, in other words. I see your point and now see mine.

[82_28]

And the focus is not on one site or one man, it is on thousands of leaked cables. I think ppl from 'celebrity news' focused propaganda environments find this hard to grasp.

Which again, is the point I have been making all along. I really don't get what is so hard about this. This is mainstream media exposure of shit a lot of people have no interest in, insofar as "I just turn on my computer and it just works" and then they go to "my facebook" see wassup wit their peeps.

[crikkett]

Over the weekend, an insightful article by Zen Gardner exposed how WikiLeaks resembles an establishment creation. The article correctly pointed out that the WikiLeaks storyline was conforming nicely to the elite's problem-reaction-solution method, with the solution of more tyranny for our safety.

This past year's wikileaks story reads like a Grant Morrison comic.

[wintler2]

`The truth will always win’ - Julian Assange writes
Tuesday, December 07, 10 (11:26 pm)
[i]Wikileaks founder Julian Assange wrote this Op-Ed for The Australian today:
..

Another piece by JA that i can only agree with and applaud.

But why in Rupert Murdochs The Australian, which is agressively pro-conservative/US/corporate?
Maybe cos its our only national newspaper.

Or maybe another example of testing for a 'freedom deficit', i.e. asking the MSM to be as good as their pretensions, as with amazon.com's servers. If it improves the performance of existing corrupt MSM, even temporarily, is that a good thing, or reformist self-sabotage?

If it undermines the very close and cosy relationship between NewsCorp and all arms of the State (state police, AFP, ASIS-ASIO-DSD-etc, Lowy Institutes) cos e.g. ASIS agents decide that NEWSCorp is now less trustworthy or deserving, then that would be ab-so-lutely fabulous.

[eyeno]

"An America in total economic collapse will require another “decider” and more “Patriot Acts,” even more totalitarian and vicious than the last, that and an end to the even farcical elections that are now inundated with drug money and cash from US based foreign corporations."

Do not think it would take a nuke to convince the American people it is necessary to go git dem terrarist. They would beat ham sandwiches to death with a remote control and anybody caught with one hanging out of their mouth if told to. If a big bang in the U.S. it seems more likely that it would be to send a message to other countries. Chip in full force or a large dancing mushroom could also visit your neighborhood complete with cargo containers equipped with Barney music and water board massage parlors. I bet they hate Barney music enough not to risk it. And why take away elections since the Americans love them so. U.S. elections are better than Dancing With The Stars and Peoples Court combined. Americans love their freedom (sic) so much it seems silly to take it away and risk having to mend the fences after a real live stampede caused by waking them up. Americans will willingly git dem terrarists so I can't think of a reason for a Pop Festival other than spite and giggles or perhaps a new landing strip for the coming ufo invaders. If they plan chop shop and strip the U.S. to the point of being a third world nation nobody will care. They will still be on guard protecting the safety of their tent cities from the dreaded ham sandwiches they are told that GAB is surely preparing for them. (Goldstein Assange Bin Laden) And I have about decided that if there was such a thing as a real Wikileak they would slide a note under their pillow telling them it was an internet rumor and it would all be over in time to watch the next episode of America's Biggest Loser. And nothing against Americans in particular by the way.

[Plutonia]

... Today he's a Zionist/Fascist/Reptilian Stooge [and] tomorrow he'll still be a Zionist/Fascist/Reptilian Stooge

Sometimes getting the right bit of information *cough* at the right time *cough* makes all the difference in the world.

Just saying...

[JackRiddler]

§ § §

...First, let's be clear, the 250,000 pages of cables amounted to some geopolitical Jerry Springer he-said-she-said nonsense to make countries look petty and stupid. They revealed nothing new that wasn't already known or well suspected. The information simply stoked existing flames by airing geopolitical dirty laundry, nothing more -- no secret weapons, no major arms deals, no tactical locations of troops, and no revealing the ID of secret agents, etc.

Here Blair shows only that he either doesn't know or wishes to ignore the most basic facts about what has happened so far, and I don't know which would be worse in someone writing with such certainty.

About 1,000 of the 251,000 cables (not "pages") have actually been released to the public, so neither Blair nor anyone else outside the initially privileged newspapers can speak to the other 250,000.

Getting this so wrong disqualifies Blair as too lazy, or too committed to an a priori argument, to learn about his subject before writing his essay.

Blair also shows that he's willing to follow the most frivolous and general line of the official spin to date: that these cables are uniformly "petty and stupid" and "reveal nothing new." (In the process, he also equates facts "already known" with those "well suspected," as though there is no difference.)

Surprise! This is the same line we hear from the corporate media and think-tank flappers every day, but Blair doesn't ask why they're saying it. He spares no further effort in making the same case for "nothing to see here," suggesting once again that he isn't paying attention.

More than a dozen important stories putting the lie to official statements of US policy have already come out through the documents. Many other "already known" or "well suspected" and inconvenient realities about US and allied policy have been confirmed. Diplomats spying on UN officials in violation of the UN rules that the US is obligated to follow by treaty. (UK translator Katharine Gun made a similar revelation back in 2002; having paid a price for that, I bet she would not sneeze at documentary confirmation of the same tactics being used in 2010 as "old news.") Pressure on many countries not to prosecute wrongdoing. More lies in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. All this may be just a taste.

Here's my favorite example at the moment:

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/04/yeme ... -us-drone/

Yemeni Govt Lies: 2007 ‘Iranian Spy Plane’ Was Known to Be US Drone
US Embassy Contacted Saleh Before Allegations Against Iran Emerged

by Jason Ditz, December 04, 2010

Yemeni state media reported on March 28, 2007 that they had shot down an “Iranian spy plane” over their air space, and the story was quickly picked up by media outlets the world over, with claims Iran was using drones to spy on the Yemenis.

But as with so many things coming out of Yemeni President Saleh’s office, this was a lie. We found this out conclusively today, as a new WikiLeaks cable showed the State Department official Nabeel Khoury had contacted President Saleh before the announcement because the Yemenis found a US drone wash up on shore.

The US insisted the drone was being used outside of Yemeni air space and belonged to the USS Ashland, which was patrolling in international waters at the time. Saleh was said to have “expressed doubt” about this story but promised not to blame the US.

Instead, and bizarrely, he blamed Iran, who doesn’t have drones with anywhere near the range necessary to reach Yemen, and claimed the Yemeni government had “shot them down.” The cable concludes that “Saleh decided he would benefit more from painting Iran as the bad guy in this case.”

The cable is at http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/04/07SANAA473.html

S E C R E T SANAA 000473

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/31/2017
TAGS: PREL MASS YM
SUBJECT: (S) UNMANNED USG AIRCRAFT WASHES ASHORE, OFFICIAL
MEDIA REPORTS DOWNED IRANIAN "SPY PLANE"

REF: STATE 32641

Classified By: CDA NABEEL KHOURY, FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D).

¶1. (S) On March 27, Yemeni military officers discovered an
unmanned USG reconnaissance aircraft (Scan Eagle) that had
washed ashore on the Arabian Sea coast in the province of
Hadramaut. The President's Office immediately protested the
incident to CDA and requested an explanation. Initially
unaware of any USG operations in the area, Post learned after
further inquiry that the reconnaissance aircraft belonged to
the U.S.S. Ashland, which had been patrolling as part of
CTF-150, 60 nautical miles off the Yemeni coast. The
aircraft had crashed in international waters on March 17 and
had not been recovered.

¶2. (S) On March 28, CDA spoke with President Saleh (who was
attending the Arab League summit in Riyadh) via telephone and
confirmed that the aircraft belonged to the U.S. Navy. He
assured Saleh that the plane crashed performing routine
reconnaissance near the ship and had not been operating in
Yemeni territory. CDA also met separately with Interior
Minister Rashad Alimi and Ammar Saleh, Deputy Director of the
National Security Bureau, and presented both with general
information on the aircraft.

¶3. (S) President Saleh expressed doubt as to the plane's
actual mission, but promised CDA that the ROYG would not
"turn this into an international incident" and would instruct
government officials not to comment. On March 29, official
and pro-government media sources reported that the Yemeni
military had shot down an Iranian "spy plane" off the coast
of Hadramaut, after communicating with "multinational forces"
in the region. Independent daily Al-Ayam (largest
circulating independent newspaper), quoted an unnamed Yemeni
military official as confirming that the plane belonged to
the American government, but would not comment on whether the
plane was shot down or discovered after crashing.

¶4. (S) Comment: President Saleh clearly believes the
unmanned aircraft had been performing reconnaissance in
Yemeni territory when it crashed. He could have taken the
opportunity to score political points by appearing tough in
public against the United States, but chose instead to blame
Iran. No doubt focused on the unrest in Saada and our
support for the transfer of excess armored personnel carriers
from neighboring countries (reftel), Saleh decided he would
benefit more from painting Iran as the bad guy in this case.
End Comment.
KHOURY

This outrageous deception targeted at the international public, described by the cable in a routine tone, is a building block toward provoking war with Iran. It's a miniature version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. To sneer at it as something that smartguys like Eric Blair could have "well suspected" (as any of us who caught the false story back in 2007 probably did) is to dismiss the difference between a presumption that can still be dismissed and a confirmed, undeniable fact.

Goodbye Enlightenment, hello post-reality.

There are other RI threads (and posts higher up on this thread) that go into more depth on stories from the cables, stories that cannot simply be denigrated as the "petty and stupid" stuff about personalities that most of the corporate propaganda coverage has so far highlighted.

Eric Blair (who's got some nerve trying to glom himself off as the new Orwell -- or is that his real name?) proceeds to paint the inevitable reactions of the US government, media, and right- and left-wing politicians as something to blame on Assange, all on the basis of an assertion that it "looks" to Blair like the "action-reaction-synthesis" trope, and therefore must be so (once again murdering Hegel).

Blair's attention to the facts remains cursory, as here:

And Assange is playing the clever but likable villain part so well, too, claiming to have an encrypted "insurance" file in case anyone kills him or terminates the website.

It will be a surprise to the hundreds of thousands who downloaded the "History Insurance" file starting several weeks ago that this is a "claim." But maybe when they get the encrypt they'll discover that it goes off like a bomb, James Bond style?

Speaking of gossipy bullshit:

Assange is the perfect international man of mystery with the dark shades in press conferences; endless mainstream media interviews with his exotic accent and short temper; and his famous silver-blond locks.

Huh huh, Beavis, that guy talks like an Australian!

How does Blair's bilge about Assange's appearance and fashion choices differ from what's in the tabloids? How does the upshot of what Blair writes differ from much of the official line, with the latter's identical dismissal of the documents' importance and insistence that Wikileaks isn't journalism and should not have the same protection?

Who is assisting the planned crackdown on Internet freedom in this case? Perhaps "Eric" meant to say he was "Tony"?

Ron Paul said it best in his book Revolution: A Manifesto: "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." Paul reiterated this principle of transparency in a recent interview. Paul said we need more WikiLeaks if we expect to live in a free society:

'In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,' Paul insisted. 'In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble.'

In a minor Orwellian flourish, Blair seems to have taken that single line from a speech today in which Paul made the opposite of Blair's case:

Focus on the Policy, Not WikiLeaks

by Rep. Ron Paul, December 07, 2010

We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the WikiLeaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media.

At its core, the WikiLeaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insists on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focuses on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.

No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name?

In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often “official” government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.

SNIP

-- From http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2010/1 ... wikileaks/

.

Ask yourself: why Wikileaks? Cablegate looks a lot like Cryptome fare, and the helicopter attack video a lot like something we've seen many times on Liveleaks.

Because Liveleaks and its ilk specialize in making one-off jokes out of murder videos for the pleasure of a specialty market of misanthropists generally hostile to politics. Cryptome just posts his stuff on one page and apparently hates doing the people work necessary for getting attention (something I can sympathize with).

The last few months Wikileaks schooled everyone about how to make a PR splash, but there was very little mystery in the techniques employed and it would not have been possible without the strong material they got their hands on (meaning the helicopter massacre video and the war logs, the releases of which established the cred for the long drip-drip strategy with the cables).

This is where I see the most evidence that the project is compromised, and this is what you hear from Wikileaks people who have defected from Assange: in the ruthless if incredibly effective use of PR technique, and the need in the process to enter deals with the devils of establishment media.

What Assange may have conceded to them in terms of what comes out first is a very interesting and potentially disturbing matter. Another big question is whether the full cache will ultimately be published, now that the crackdown has geared up. I think we're reaching a point where Assange and Co. better get it over with (and do the bank thing, too) to rob some of the impetus that the constant drip-drip gives to the forces of censorship and take away any hope they can still stop this release.

.

[Montag]

[wintler2]

Another ace, JR.

I differ on ..

..Another big question is whether the full cache will ultimately be published, now that the crackdown has geared up. I think we're reaching a point where Assange and Co. better get it over with (and do the bank thing, too) to rob some of the impetus that the constant drip-drip gives to the forces of censorship and take away any hope they can still stop this release.

Always keep some powder in reserve. The longer Wl's can put off total dump, the longer it will continue to exist - once they've released all, they have no more leverage.

Its a superb game theory dilemma - if they kill assange, the insurance file will go Bang! in their faces. I think the bad guys have (wrongly) chosen the drip-drip as the least worst option, because they're afraid of what could be buried somewhere in the cables, namely proof of very high crimes. They'll stick that course for a while yet, and rely on their 'droids to succeed in their muddying and 'Move Along!' work. I still think the fog of confusion being synthesised may well win out, as it has with e.g. climate change.
Hence they're spinning the story like crazy, trying to outhack the hackers, and pressuring JA & wl's any way they can, but not (yet) downing any airplanes.

In return Wl's is ekeing out the material, and allowing (?) it to be initially but only temporarily edited/spun by MSM. What does Wl's get out of playing the MSM game? Media coverage, mainstream credibility, fact checking resources, and the opportunity to expose MSM as complicit if it distorts the cables too much. They lose nothing except immediate total disclosure, which is anyway likely to overwhelm people and so lessen the impact. I still think Wl's/JA are playing exactly the game they would play if they were very smart and had hearts of gold and nerves of steel.

[nathan28]

Riddler-- I was just about to post the crashed drone story. I lulz'd myself. "Everybody knows robot planes crash all the time then just wash up unexpectedly on the beach and then all the gov'ts involved will claim that something completely different happened and the only way anyone will ever learn is if you overhear some wasted diplomat talking about it in a hotel bar you're washing dishes in!"






Also, I learned that Saudi kids smoke hash and get drunk at "underground" parties and that someone from the State Dep't went to one, strictly on a fact-finding mission. Oh, that must be one of those Mossad KWH 'distraction' stories.

[Montag]

Tarpley on Wikileaks limited hangout (he comes on in the last 2-3 minutes of the first clip, go to Youtube to watch the rest):




Here's just the audio (edit: Barracuda says this is playing automatically so I took out the embed b/c she said it was annoying, now you'll have to follow the link):
http://tarpley.net/2010/12/05/assange-t ... a-enemies/

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Another piece by JA that i can only agree with and applaud.

But why in Rupert Murdochs The Australian, which is agressively pro-conservative/US/corporate?
Maybe cos its our only national newspaper.

Murdoch's not daft. He likes money and sales.

Remember how, as an ardent right winger and anti-Communist, he abandoned all his idealogical scruples to burrow as deeply as he could into China's bum? Someone had told him there was a dollar up there, and he went after it like a ferret - shedding the beliefs of a lifetime in pursuit of some petty cash.

He does this all the time.

In Australia, because Assange is Australian, Murdoch's papers portray him as a modern-day Wilfred Burchett. This allows Murdoch to attack the current Australian government from the left for once (are they against journalism and free speech?) while he continues his neverending, strength-sapping attacks from the right.

If his feint to the left fails to sell papers, he will change direction. He can't really lose - while Assange is a hero, Murdoch's Australian papers can accuse those who hate him of being unpatriotic. When he stops being a hero, they'll accuse those who support him of being unpatriotic, without missing a beat. They don't really care either way.

Over here, we get Murdoch's real face, quite often - pure venom from the get-go, with no hope of variation at any point. His papers, his stations, don't hold back much. It seems Julian Assange killed Princess Di or something, and shat in Jamie Oliver's lunch box, and cancelled the final season of House just before it was shown on E4. Murdoch tailors his news by region, is all I'm saying, and he's good at it.

If it undermines the very close and cosy relationship between NewsCorp and all arms of the State (state police, AFP, ASIS-ASIO-DSD-etc, Lowy Institutes) cos e.g. ASIS agents decide that NEWSCorp is now less trustworthy or deserving, then that would be ab-so-lutely fabulous.

Newscorp has contributed significantly to the death of British democracy, in my opinion. We co-opted it into our Fourth Estate, in order to break the printer's strikes, and now the second generation of Murdoch's strikebreakers decide what news is fit to print, and who is fit to run the country. Literally.

[vanlose kid]

U.S. may seek extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
Assange could face espionage and other charges, but prosecutors would face a 1st Amendment test.

Reporting from Washington — Angry over the bombardment of leaks of classified material, top Obama administration officials are considering filing an extradition request to have WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange face criminal charges, possibly for espionage.

Any such proceedings would set up a test of whether the 1st Amendment's protection for a free press extends to a website with a worldwide audience.

"What we're investigating is a crime under U.S. law," Philip J. Crowley, the chief State Department spokesman, said Tuesday. "The provision of 250,000 classified documents from someone inside the government to someone outside the government is a crime."

His remarks mirrored sharp words Monday from Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., who said prosecutors are weighing not only espionage but other crimes possibly committed by the Australian citizen, who through his website postings has embarrassed U.S. diplomats and many foreign governments they deal with.

"We have a very serious criminal investigation that's underway, and we're looking at all of the things that we can do to try to stem the flow of this information," Holder said.

Holder added that as prosecutors look beyond espionage, "there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal." Among them, law enforcement sources said, is charging Assange with receiving stolen property.

Assange, 39, was arrested Tuesday in London and ordered to remain in custody until a hearing next week on his possible extradition to Sweden in an unrelated case.

Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Assn., said in an interview that he believed the Obama administration would charge Assange with espionage and seek his extradition to the U.S. But he said no European country like Sweden would turn Assange over to the U.S. unless it was assured that he would not face the death penalty. Although espionage carries a potential death penalty in the U.S., capital punishment is banned in much of Europe.

In addition, Ellis said, Assange certainly would fight extradition to the U.S., where his name has become anathema to many in Washington.

"This will not be an easy process," Ellis said. "It will be fairly drawn out. It's something that's going to be quite lengthy and quite challenging."

Ellis said if Assange is taken to Sweden, for example, the first step for the U.S. would be to file a written request with that government outlining in detail exactly what charges might be brought against him.

"They would want to show that they have the evidence he has violated U.S. law," Ellis said. "The charges should be very specific, that we have the evidence and are preparing a case to show that he violated the Espionage Act, for instance." Also, Sweden must have the same crime on the books in order for the U.S. to bring charges against Assange.

Last week the U.S. government notified Assange that he has been treading very close to criminality. In a Nov. 28 letter to him and his attorney, Jennifer Robinson of London, the State Department said it was illegal for the classified material to have been provided to Assange and that "as long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing."

Since 1917, the Espionage Act has made it a crime to "willfully communicate" secret government information that could harm national security. Yet the government has shied from prosecuting journalists or the news media for publishing classified information. The 1st Amendment's freedom of speech and the press has protected journalists, though it is not clear whether the courts would consider Assange a journalist.

But experts in national security law say the WikiLeaks founder is likely to face prosecution because of the scale and brazenness of his operation.

"I think there is a very good chance of a prosecution" under the Espionage Act, said Washington lawyer Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel at the CIA. "His actions are not those of a responsible journalist that would enjoy the protection of the Constitution. He solicited people to commit a crime by sending him classified information. And then he disclosed it on a transmission belt."

The government has been more willing to prosecute leakers of classified information rather than journalists who publish it, said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Assange could have "a pretty good defense," she said, if it was shown the classified cables were sent to WikiLeaks without his involvement. The Supreme Court has said the "innocent recipient of unlawful information" is usually protected in publishing it, she said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 5271.story

*

[smiths]

a couple of points after reading all his shit

the whole internet is not a wikileaks, thats just total crap
if you were setting out to write a historical record of the last ten years and you were trying to back-up your claims, articles on the internet alleging this and that have no value,
cables from the USG to or from another government published on wikileaks or the The Guardian are fucking gold

both scenarios regarding wikileaks are still possible, but the claim that nothing new has been published is now also total crap,
maybe in the first couple of days you could have claimed it (as i did), but now it just looks disingenuous

viewing wikileaks through any local prism and trying to ascertain the truth of wikileaks is misguided,
focusing for instance on how wikileaks benefits Israel for example, and then constructing a case on it is wrong

careful where you tread, i have watched enough shit unfold over the last six years here to see patterns
consistently and carefully advancing a viewpoint or generating noise and then claiming that you weren't, and that you were 'just throwing it out there' is giving your game away


increasingly i see Assange as the first great freedom fighter against the modern fascist global order (MFGO),

if he is an actor for the MFGO, and this is all a script, then it is without doubt the greatest, most brilliant and darkest play ever conceived,
it would mean that the dark arts have consumed us, and that our 2000 year old conceptions of what the world is and what it means to be human are being obliterated

[Montag]

increasingly i see Assange as the first great freedom fighter against the modern fascist global order (MFGO),

if he is an actor for the MFGO, and this is all a script, then it is without doubt the greatest, most brilliant and darkest play ever conceived,
it would mean that the dark arts have consumed us, and that our 2000 year old conceptions of what the world is and what it means to be human are being obliterated

You sound like a boy scout, not a CTer. How many wars do you think have been manufactured in human history? You think the blue bloods view us as the same race -- or full equals? It's almost as if a DUer stopped in.