The Wikileaks Question

[AhabsOtherLeg]

.
Pravda. The word means truth. The paper has never lived up to the name.

[Montag]

.
Pravda. The word means truth. The paper has never lived up to the name.

A lot of paranormal sites are picking that up. I know what Pravda is, it's RI material. That is the primary source. Reading the NYT on Latin America or Russia or Iran (the list could go on) is no different than reading Russian media on anything.

[nathan28]

To clarify that's Jose Padilla. Also torture.

But if I was him I'd also be very worried about giving my DNA to these people - we don't really know why they'd want it, or how they might use it in future, but thanks to Wikileaks we know that they do want people's DNA, and they obviously believe it can give them some sort of leverage or power.

What do you mean that "we know that they do want people's DNA"? You mean b/c they are trying to collect it? Or is there a document for that? There's also something incredibly ironic about collecting the smallest possible identifying unit of life from someone who was polite enough to give diplomats black-highlighter protection.

Assange is at this point an outlaw, that's why they're demanding not just his blood, but blood samples: it's about reducing him from a legal person to mere molecules. Don't just blindfold him so you have to lead him around as part of a spectacle--put him in a sensory deprivation helmet and thermal suit and bind him to a gurney, take away anything but time and space, heartbeat and breathing. I imagine that the Jose Padilla treatment is going to look like a fairy tale very shortly.




*you know, harvesting a huge quantity of Ov to store in a massive DOR generating facility to open the proper channels for the insect loa

[barracuda]

To clarify that's Jose Padilla. Also torture.

I know. But once they get in the sens-dep headsets, they all look the same to me.

[JackRiddler]

Cross-posting for general interest:

"They" have desired and prepared for greater repressive control of Internet content for many years... and so far haven't got very far with that beyond a rhetorical level of bitching about bloggers and adopting the corporate copyright crusade. Wikileaks provides the pretext for a new try at a content control system -- let's register journalists! -- but that doesn't mean it's going to happen and actually work (any more than the full Rex84 plan has been put into effect, or open martial law followed 9/11 and the official activation under emergency orders of the "shadow government" that had always been present).

The Wikileaks affair (as distinct from WL, the org) is inspiring not only calls for new authoritarian measures but a lot of opposition to them, and in a lot of countries. How does it fit in that presidents of countries that aren't official enemies or antagonists, like Lula, are supporting Wikileaks? Meanwhile there are close to 2000 WL mirrors. Is the US going to build a wall against the rest of the Internet world? Will they invite other nations to join a Cyber Coalition? The Wikileaks affair may, in fact, appear to confirm that shunting and content control can't be done without shutting down large sections of the Web (possibly then inspiring resistance even from the turkey-recipe traders and the ISP corps). It's one thing to show a weakness in the content control and propaganda system that can be addressed, and use that as a pretext for draconian measures (which would argue for the psyop thesis). But what if WL is showing a weakness that cannot be overcome without gumming up the machinery of control? (See State Department and military busy with an internal panic over security and telling their own people not to read stuff in the public domain!) Meanwhile, plenty of criminality is being exposed by the leaks (even if it's not the full deep state in view), undermining the credibility of some of the same entities who desire total content control. For these reasons I don't think the WL affair is going to turn into some kind of final Internet putsch, but also that we can't allow any moves in that direction to be kept quietly. (I certainly hope the Dec. 16th House hearings are going to be followed closely and turn those bozos into circus clowns.)

But I reserve the right to not be certain of anything at this stage -- and also not to be accused therefore of falling for an unknown game.

Heroes are dangerous. You never know what's really in their heads, and you don't know what they'll do next. It's a regrettable existential reality that the only hero you can trust not to disappoint or betray you is a dead one. Assange is not my hero. Based only on what I can see now and have seen so far, Wikileaks has engaged in heroic if also questionable acts that, however, won't matter unless they are a spark -- if WL finally becomes a small part of the story because enough others start doing the same.

.

ON EDIT: When provisionally adopting the assumption that they are genuine, I am despite whatever criticism fairly in awe of how Wikileaks have played their game so far. If they are genuine, it is so far an awesome success, which in itself is the grounds for suspicion among those who assume instead that All Things (and not just WL) Are Scripted. As I agree Many Things Are Scripted, I can't give a firm yes or no.

.

[JackRiddler]

nathan28 from viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29933&start=105#p370964

Yet Wikileaks considers a flippant and mendacious comment by a Spanish prosecutor to be ‘deep and valuable’? Here we can see ideology masquerading as objective truth. A flippant opinion by a Spanish prosecutor is considered ‘deep and valuable’ because he should know such things.

The Wikileak is in reality not a revelation at all. It is simply the publication of a highly dubious statement with an ideological assumption appended. Here the Wikileak serves to bolster the negative view of the country engineered by the acolytes of the corporate media to demonise a respectable socialist democracy. Far from undermining US imperialism, this Wikileaks ‘revelation’ slanders a law-abiding country by associating it with criminality and terrorism.

The argument posed here seems to be analogous to saying that because the Nixon tapes were full of his absurdly racist rants, the release of the tapes was an effort to undermine the civil rights movement.

There is a simple fact associated with this that Global Research can't wrap it's LaRouchite brains around. The leaked cables document the ideological arrogance of the State Dep't and official US policy. If you (the impersonal you) can't see that than I'm not sure what else to say. Sorry, there's no no receipt for fifty kg of nanothermite, ATTN: Kroll Int'l Sec. Desk, Liberty & Church 10006.

That, and the omissions here are almost as important as the facts. So far, we've been told that Eastern European, Russian and African gov'ts are woefully corrupt. We've even seen some documents that show that the Knesset is corrupt and infiltrated by organized crime, but Alice seems to have me and Wikileaks itself on ignore. But we've seen next to not even the slightest hint of corruption in the Euro-American west--despite the fact that documents tell us that those same corrupt Slavs and Jews and Arabs are, in fact, moving into and out of the United States and Europe with relative ease. Apparently, their cunning Orientals have an ability to deceive, being able to engage in massive criminal conspiracy without having any allies in the morally pure and virginal West. In fact, check out the admission by the DEA that they do not intercept much dope coming out of SE Asia. True, it was the #1 source for heroin when the Taliban held control of Afghanistan prior to the 2k1-present campaigns, but that's really not a big deal, right? Nothing to see here...

Which simply is not true and cannot be true. Palms have to get greased, and when like Mogilevich you have more money than god, that's probably not a problem. See Gary Webb's investigation, which was largely initiated by the gov't calling in some favors to get one of the LA suppliers in Iran-Contra off the hook in County Ct. IIRC. "You have one new message. 'Hey, Rickie, it's Ollie...'" etc.

The damn Israeli organized crime memo mentions this as a specific problem, pointing out that the privileged status of Israeli citizens makes it far more difficult to arrest or otherwise interfere with them even when they are known and documented int'l traffickers.


So there is, in fact, value to these. First, they show how thoroughly ideological US policy is and how propagandized the little Eichmanns of empire are; diplomacy is thoroughly in the hands of some jingos, to be sure. Reading some of the things these State Dep't Real American Heros have written makes Henry Kissinger and Zbig look like beacons of antiamerican cosmopolitanism. Second, it shows that this confused-ass worldview manifests in actual policy while disguising it: We're not trying to extract resources from Nigeria. We're not colluding with business to exploit these countries. We're spreading "democracy", or whatever. Lastly, the present omissions are telling, and underscore the problems inherent with the first two issues.


Now, it may be the case than any one of the things I conclude here is inaccurate--less than 1% of the docs are available to most of us. It may be that what I am doing is deconstructing the press's filtering of the docs--but in that case I'm working with what I can see, which has to go through the NY Times for approval. It may be the case that there are "seeded" docs; it may be the case that some are forgeries and hoaxes, though considering the way that Assange and Manning have been treated, I doubt it.

Nice. Just one thing:

There is a simple fact associated with this that Global Research can't wrap it's LaRouchite brains around.

Global Research publishes a lot of views, including the excellent article by Andrew Gavin Marshall back on page 23 of this thread...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30362&start=315#p370129

[AhabsOtherLeg]

What do you mean that "we know that they do want people's DNA"? You mean b/c they are trying to collect it? Or is there a document for that? There's also something incredibly ironic about collecting the smallest possible identifying unit of life from someone who was polite enough to give diplomats black-highlighter protection.

It was one of the most shocking documents to come out so far (to me, anyway). Surely it's been discussed here at some point? Here's the story from The Guardian:

A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.

It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.

Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".

The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... -spying-un

Here's the cable itself. It's a long one, though: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/07/09STATE80163.html

EDIT: And the other one, where DNA is requested: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/04/09STATE37561.html

Being one of the UK contingent, taking DNA from the arrested to build a database is not that surprising to me, and it didn't really take Wikileaks to reveal it. I was on the UK Database for a while after a foolish incident - it's supposedly all been destroyed now, but I sincerely doubt it, since it was the largest DNA database ever built, and would have value on the private market.

Secretly taking DNA from UN officials is new to me, though - they obviously have some use for it, or they wouldn;t have asked.

[JackRiddler]

Secretly taking DNA from UN officials is new to me, though - they obviously have some use for it, or they wouldn;t have asked.

Very true. There must be a use for it.

Or else they are acting from the rationalizing, standardizing, universalizing, totalizing impulse that inevitably comes to drive all forms of bureaucratic power overreach (state and corporate) once they get rolling. If they can do it, they will. If they do it once, they ultimately try to do it in all cases, and then draw up rules and algorithms for doing it. It is added to the standard programming. If they run into trouble doing it, they draw up more algorithms in response. This is also why one guy with explosive underwear later later translates into thousands of them poking around (by radiation, mostly) in yours.

.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

...one guy with explosive underwear later translates into thousands of them poking around (by radiation, mostly) in yours.
.

See, I didn't know they were doing that to me either. Bastards. Is there a cable about it? I hope they redacted my name.

[Plutonia]

Good lord!! What in hell is this:

Can we become an America WikiLeaks can't assail?

That's actually a headline from the Washington Post, er... tomorrow:

By Kathleen Parker
Sunday, December 12, 2010

This is unbelievable:

Thanks to WikiLeaks, even Vlad the Putin can raise an eyebrow and presume to know more about founding American principles, democracy and free speech.

It is convenient to blame poor little Julian Assang e, the cyberkind who published the leaks that someone stole.

He is now a martyr to the brat brigades who occupy basements and attics, keeping the company of others similarly occupied with virtual life.

Assange is the king brat, but only du jour. He will be displaced soon enough by more ambitious hacks whose delinquent and, worse, sinister inclinations are enabled by technology. Alas, we are at the mercy of giddy, power-hungry nerds operating beyond the burden of responsibility or accountability.

Bwaahahaa

Do I want to hunt down Assange as we do al-Qaeda, as one famous caribou hunter suggested? Uh, no. Assange, who is in custody awaiting extradition on (dubious) rape charges, may be a naughty boy. But he is an irresponsible publisher, a conduit, not the perpetrator of the originating offense. Whatever culpability we may assign to him ultimately will have to be determined in the way that we (but not so much the Russians and those who can see Russia on a clear day) prefer: due process.

In the meantime, a few observations are worth considering as we ponder the larger picture.

It is human nature to turn on the weak, and we apparently are today's feast. The world delights in our recoil from the release of classified documents because the big dog has a limp, a weak spine and a soft belly.

Christ!!!

Our president, though likable, is perceived as weak no matter how many raids we perform in Afghanistan. South Korea, who at least owes us an in-kind favor, at first declined our kind trade offer. China, Russia and others have criticized our monetary policy.

Meanwhile, the world sees our cacophonous Congress unable to move forward with measures to save our economy. The world watches our overfed populace stampeding to buy more junk made with cheap labor in unfriendly countries.

China holds our debt while we can't agree on how to stop the hemorrhaging. At the same time, China's students are kicking our kids' tushies around the schoolyard. From reading to math, they're so far ahead we inhale their dust.

That is to say, the world sees weakness.

This is a stunning recognition for most Americans who have grown up amid relative plenty, a sunny national disposition and mantra of good intentions. We've always known that we're the good guys, as even some of our defenders have noted in the wake of WikiLeaks revelations.

Writing for the center-right Le Figaro, French journalist Renaud Girard said: "What is most fascinating is that we see no cynicism in U.S. diplomacy. They really believe in human rights in Africa and China and Russia and Asia. They really believe in democracy and human rights."

Yes, we really do.

If Americans are guilty of anything, he said, it is being a little naive. Let's plead guilty as charged and get on with it.

Seriously!!?

With gratitude, we even find a friend on the left. Another French journalist, Laurent Joffrin, editor of the leftist Liberation, conceded that we should not necessarily accept a "demand for transparency at any price."

It would seem that we face several imperatives at this juncture: First, remain calm. Hysteria is not helpful. Second, accept that our world has changed in terms of what can be expected as "private" and behave accordingly. Third, all hands on deck as we work to reconcile our better angels with our fallen selves.

With the exception of our military, we are a flabby lot, and I'm not just talking about girth. We are merely disgusting in that department. I'm talking about our self-discipline, our individual will, our self-respect, our voluntary order.

Note the operative words: self, individual and voluntary.

We don't need bureaucrats and politicians to dictate how to behave; how to spend (or save); what and how to eat. We need to be the people we were meant to be: strong, resilient, disciplined, entrepreneurial, focused, wise, playful, humorous, humble, thoughtful and, please, self-deprecating. We have all the tools and opportunities a planet can confer.

It's still a jungle out there, however, and the weak lose every time. The lack of respect from other countries, the ridicule from thugs and the WikiLeaks celebration are part of the same cloth. We can do what's necessary - tighten our belts, get tough, grab our shovels. To do less is to surrender to victimhood and the fates that befall those who decline to govern themselves.

Shovels? WTF!? For piling up the shit?

Okay so that's propaganda and maybe that shtick works on TV and even radio but does it or did it ever work in print, and now in this milieu it's like a fart in public. Sheesh. Don't they know?

[MacCruiskeen]

Our president, though likable, is perceived as weak

1. He is not likable. 2. He is not perceived as weak.

If Americans are guilty of anything, he said, it is being a little naive. Let's plead guilty as charged and get on with it.

That's a keeper. Iraqis and Afghans will love it.

[JackRiddler]

Good lord!! What in hell is this:

Kathleen Parker, long an exponent (though hardly a "master") of can-do all-American apple pie rhetoric that evinces a complete lack of awareness of just how inbred fascist she sounds. Nightmarish, funny, but as irrelevant as a fart in a shitstorm.

I can't let this common lie pass, however:

China's students are kicking our kids' tushies around the schoolyard. From reading to math, they're so far ahead we inhale their dust.

That is to say, the world sees weakness.

From The War On Teachers thread:

Monday, November 22, 2010
More on our "bad" math scores

Published in San Jose Mercury News (November 16).

Is it true that "U.S. lags other wealthy nations in higher math" (Page B1, Nov. 11)?

Studies show that middle-class American children attending well-funded schools score near the top of the world in math. American average scores are unspectacular because a high percentage of American school children live in poverty (20 percent; Sweden has 3 percent).

Also, some countries inflate their scores by excluding many children of poverty from taking the test. This does not happen in the United States.

Finally, the Stanford study only considered the percentage, not the number of students reaching the top level. Several countries that did better than the United States have small populations (e.g., Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland). The United States had 25 percent of the world's top achievers on the 2009 PISA science test. China had 1 percent.

Stephen Krashen

http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2010/11/m ... cores.html

With only a small proportion of Chinese people really seeing relative prosperity and having their children even get as far as being in a school where they are given the PISA tests, we're not going to allow them any success without immediately launching into a narrative about the Yellow Peril to Lazy Americans.

.

[MacCruiskeen]

China's students are kicking our kids' tushies around the schoolyard. From reading to math, they're so far ahead we inhale their dust.

That is to say, the world sees weakness.

Just noting in passing the blithely fascistoid language, the obsession with competition, the fixation on grading, the paranoid rage at the Others looking down on Us, and the routine contempt for children, including her own.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Our president, though likable, is perceived as weak no matter how many raids we perform in Afghanistan.

So that's the reason for all the raids, then? To make him look strong. It's good to have it in writing, I suppose, even if everybody already knew.

I think the shovels might be for digging the grave of the Republic.*

*Robert Scheer's book "With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War," is good, but kind of off-topic. At least, I hope it's off-topic.

[MacCruiskeen]

Our president, though likable, is perceived as weak no matter how many raids we perform in Afghanistan.

So that's the reason for all the raids, then? To make him look strong. It's good to have it in writing, I suppose, even if everybody already knew.

So, will he be so weak and naive as to carry on just raiding Afghanistan? Will he let those gooks and hippies and hackers carry on laughing at Us? Or will he finally MAN UP and instead ... er... - wait a minute....


Now that's what I call kicking tushie.