The Wikileaks Question

[vanlose kid]

...one thing i'd like to note is the question of WL making use of MSM channels to raise publicity re the published cables. some of you may recall JA's reasons for putting WL up on Amazon: as a test. part of WL is to test media also. remember, for every cable or set of cables spun by the MSM, WL uploads the original. think about that for a moment. this is part of what JA calls scientific journalism. one the one hand you get the MSM account and fill-in or spin and on the other you have the source itself (it's not in some journalists notebook in a safe in the editors office or whatever). the trick is then that you as an individual can see for yourself how the cables have been covered, interpreted, spun, etc. how well or badly this is done tells you something about the MSM party doing it.

i believe that's a good thing, no matter how "trivial" some claim the cables are.

*

I'm curious about that, because I've read that in fact the actual cables that describe Arab monarchs begging the US to attack Iran have not been uploaded to the Wikileaks, and the newspapers that wrote so extensively about them didn't publish the original cables either. Can anybody confirm the truth of that either way?

you've read that, yes, but have you checked?

*

[vanlose kid]

Guest Post: WikiLeaks: The Banality Of Evil And Imperial Over-Reach
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/14/2010 11:51 -0500

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds


The WikiLeaks controversy speaks to Imperial Hubris and insecurity; we have forgotten that the U.S.A. stands separate from the American Empire.

A number of readers have asked me to comment on WikiLeaks and the release of "secret" diplomatic/government cables and documents. (How "secret" were they if up to 3 million people had access to them?)

I am going to connect a number of issues here by identifying the core contexts of the WikiLeaks controversy.

That every nation requires diplomacy and a diplomatic corps is not in question, nor is the need for confidentiality in pursuing diplomacy. The need for Armed Forces to defend the nation against aggression is also not in question. What is in question is whether the American Empire is acting in the best interests of the U.S. and its citizenry.

1. The U.S. operates the sole Global Empire on the planet.

The words "American Empire" offends some readers, who claim "That's not what America is about." You can make up your own version of what America's about, but you cannot deny the existence of the Empire unless you insist on ignoring facts.

As I wrote in Survival+, I make no value judgment in describing the American Empire--it is simply a fact that no other nation has the military, diplomatic, intelligence and financial reach of the U.S.

When I describe the small portion of the Empire which is visible to those of us without security clearances, I get emails (some from veterans) accusing me of "saber-rattling." I do not intend a value judgment, yet simple statements of fact are obviously triggering emotional responses.

Other readers are offended that the U.S. hasn't yet crumbled, and they list various strengths of China and Russia in an attempt to discount the Empire's scope and scale.

Once again: the American Empire is simply a matter of record. To deny its existence, to claim that the mere description of it is saber-rattling, to assert that China and Russia are almost as powerful as the Empire--these are value judgments and wishful thinking. I look at the U.S. Empire the same way as I do the Roman Empire: it was a real structure, and whether it was "good" or "bad" is another matter altogether.

At the risk of boring readers, I will once again go over the basic context of Empire, some of which I addressed in The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil (October 19, 2010).

China and Russia are land powers, the U.S. is a global maritime power. The navies of China and Russia are designed not to project power but to thwart the power projection of the U.S.

Neither China nor Russia have the capabilities to project power beyond their borders. If Canada stops exporting shale oil to China, there is nothing China can do to force Canada's hand except bluster.

China and Russia have long borders with potentially hostile states. The U.S. does not.

Historically, China and Russia possessed land empires. The U.S. has historically been a maritime, trading/mercantilist nation.

2. World War II forced the U.S. into global geopolitics.

The U.S. began as a weak, vulnerable maritime nation focused on trade. It's foreign policy was simple: promote trade, limit permanent alliances, avoid "foreign entanglements," and deter European interventions in the Americas.

In 1940, the American people remained solidly isolationist. They wanted no part in the wars that were enveloping Europe and Asia. It required setting up Japan to be the aggressor against the U.S. to trigger America's entrance into global war.

The American Power Elites were awakening to the uncomfortable realization that what happened in Europe and Asia could eventually impact the U.S.

The U.S. had dabbled in Imperialism, taking control of Spain's old Imperial holdings in the Philippines and the Caribbean via the "Splendid Little War" of 1898, but there was significant domestic opposition to such global meddling; even the President was appalled by the annexation of Hawaii by American residents' force of arms.

This discomfort with global Empire evaporated in the titanic struggle to defeat the German and Japanese Empires. Once the war was won, America tried to return to its isolationist past; the military rapidly demobilized, maintaining a large force only in Europe to defend against Soviet expansion.

The Soviet's acquisition of nuclear weapons and German missile technology changed the context irrevocably; now the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were no longer bulwarks against attack.

The context of the Cold War was fundamentally military, with a generous side helping of diplomacy and propaganda to win or defend allies against the Soviet Bloc. Intelligence, especially photo and signal intelligence, became of paramount importance, as the secretive Soviet and Chinese societies left few transparent clues about their leaderships' intentions or their capabilities.

With the advent of the Corona/Keyhole photo satellites, the U.S. began to receive useful intelligence from space-based assets. The U.S. continues to devote massive resources to signal collection intelligence.

For more on the U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities, please see The Satellite Wars.

To say we civilians have little idea of the scope of such operations is an understatement.

This context remains in place today. The American Power Elites retain the Cold War context of military superiority, global intelligence and signal gathering and diplomatic efforts to set the agenda. (Foreign policy of the United States.)

As a result, it seems entirely "conventional" for the U.S. to spend $1 trillion prosecuting military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hundreds of billions more on GWOT (global war on terror) and a vast, shadow Empire of signal collection and analysis.

3. Unfortunately, "nation building" is not part of the American Imperial Elites' context.

According to the founder of the private non-profit Room to Read, a mere $100 million could fund the building of 20,000 libraries in impoverished developing-world communities.

The Imperial Elites have no interest in libraries, however, as was made clear in the aftermath of the Afghan conflict in 1989, as described by the 2003 film Charlie Wilson's War. ( Wilson Discusses 'Charlie Wilson's War'.)

The U.S. Empire will gladly fund various militaries around the world and devote trillions of dollars to the tasks fof military superiority and global intelligence gathering, but global projects like educating illiterate women and children do not exist in the Imperial Project except as minimalist "do-good" displays pursued for propaganda purposes.

4. The Cold war policy of secrecy and keeping the civilians safely ignorant remains a key goal of the Imperial Project. Once again this stems from the Cold War era's policy that the American public is better off not knowing what the Empire is doing on their behalf.

The intelligence and military empires constructed during World War II and the Cold war are self-sustaining, as are any global bureaucracies with unlimited budgets. This innate desire to expand by whatever means are available dovetails with the conventional Imperial status quo belief system: the less the domestic populace knows, the better.

Keeping the extent and actions of the U.S. Empire secret is thus a Prime Directive. Once the Draft (Selective Service) could be safely jettisoned in favor of a smaller, voluntary professional Armed Forces, then the Imperial Elites' task of operating without civilian participation or knowledge was rendered easier.

The Elites modus operandi is to recruit "the best and the brightest" for Imperial service, and to foster a culture of secrecy throughout the Empire. Operating within a democracy, the various fiefdoms of the Empire were still vulnerable to civilian/voter outrage. So the imperative became: keep everything secret except propaganda.

The U.S. efforts in Indochina remain largely unknown to the American public. The scope of the Vietnam War beggars description: the construction of vast bases in nearby nations, the dropping of more tonnage of bombs than in all of World War II, the planting of thousands of sensors--the list is practically endless.

The same can be said of Iraq and Afghanistan. I know only what I read in the media, but I am confident that we know only a tiny sliver of what the Empire is doing in the Mideast and beyond.

5. the Imperial Elite is adept at marketing and propaganda but not in actually operating an Empire.

The Bush administration's "selling of the war" in 2002 and 2003 was masterful. Unfortunately, Imperial hubris was more pervasive than actual planning for the aftermath of military operations, and the war became the precise quagmire which its planners denied was possible. All this has been laid out in numerous books:

The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace

Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq

Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War

Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone

Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror

The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11

Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror

State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III

6. Despite the costly failure of the Imperial Elites' leadership, their confidence in their own judgment and wisdom remains undimmed. Cracks are forming in the financial arm of the Empire, however; Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's recent statement that he is "100% confident" in his ability to control inflation reflects not confidence but rather feral insecurity masked by bloviated projections of grandiosity.

Bernanke's statements are latter-day versions of the same substitution of PR for real confidence which led U.S. commanders to declare there was a "light at the end of the tunnel" in the Vietnam War circa 1968.

As the failures and bodies pile up, however, the Elites' sense of frustration is rising, and they seek an enemy to blame for their troubles: WikiLeaks, truly a godsend to an embattled Imperial Elite. Shoot the messenger, by all means, and do so quickly.

I think the Imperial Project drew the wrong lessons from the successes of the reconstruction of Japan and Germany in the Cold War. These nations had leadership and cultural elites which were mostly left intact to lead the reconstruction, and the people of each nation were culturally homogeneous, hard-working and accepting of defeat and a new political paradigm.

Attempting to apply that model to Iraq has resulted in a catastrophic series of errors. But Imperial hubris, mission creep and bureaucratic inertia have all served to prop up the illusion that the U.S. can remake the world in its own image and to its own liking.

7. War is intrinsically messy and results in massive collateral damage and death.

The Empire does not want the domestic populace to know the gory realities of war, and it has actively suppressed images of war since World war II. The truth of was is always ugly; armies routinely kill their own soldiers by mistake, and civilians in combat zones are killed without intention. It just happens, and after a while you stop noticing. It's the nature of war.

In an insurgency, combatants trying to kill you do not do you the favor of wearing an identifying uniform. So you are left with impossible choices on a daily basis.

The first Gulf War was tailor-made for a "clean" victory: combat was mostly restricted to the desert, far from civilians, and Saddam's army dutifully lined up in classic large-scale units which could be identified and targeted.

The Second Gulf War was an entirely different war after organized resistance crumbled.

So there is little wonder that leaked video of people being shot down outrages the Imperial Elites. What the Empire does around the world "should" be kept secret from the American public because their support for the Imperial Project would falter if the truth was revealed. This is the core reason behind the Imperial outrage at the WikiLeaks leaks.

8. Few if any of the leaks are "secrets" as commonly understood.

According to A defense of WikiLeaks: Some inconvenient facts, "most of the cables were accessible by up to 3 million people - diplomats, military people, agencies, staffs at all levels. Something is not all that secret, it would seem, if millions of people can pull it up on their computers."

The outrage results from the Empire's scope and reach being revealed to a domestic populace which the Elites fear might disrupt the Project. (After all, they're "doing it all for your own good.")

9. The leaks were not obtained by hacking; they were released by U.S. participants in the Imperial Project. (Secrets gained by hacking, i.e. by China, don't seem to bother the Imperial Elites all that much.)

10. Not everyone in the Imperial Project agrees with it, once they are inside the machinery. Vast conspiracies involving thousands of people have been broken by single individuals' release of key documents: the tobacco industry, the Pentagon Papers, and now WikiLeaks.

As I have described recently, doing evil becomes banal once you are safely enmeshed in the machinery of power doing your "day job":

The Banality of (Financial) Evil (November 9, 2010)

Fraud and Complicity Are Now the Lifeblood of the Status Quo (Banality of Financial Evil, Part 2) (November 12, 2010)

The Federal Reserve and the Pathology of Power (November 18, 2010)

As I intimated above, Americans have a long history of distrusting global meddling and Imperial pretensions. Blowing up the village to "save" it runs counter to key American values.

The Imperial Elites fear these values, and hence their apoplectic fury at the public release of documents distributed to WikiLeaks by American participants in the Imperial Project.

11. WikiLeaks is a "social media" extension of the free press.

Others have already commented on this, for example: Wikileaks Is "A New Form Of The Press".

I suspect the Wiki and other social media avenues of distribution are popular not just because there are no "gatekeepers" (that is, editors who could be threatened into complicity by Imperial Elites) who might choose to withhold the data, but also because the distrust of corporate media is rising--and for good reason.

Trust in the Mainstream Media to make the right choice for the nation is fading, as the MSM's parroting of Central State propaganda has only become more routine and shrill in the past decade.

The war was "sold," and now the Imperial Elites are focusing on "selling" the "recovery," largely by intervening in the stock market in a vain attempt to create an illusory "wealth effect" in the top 20% of households who actually own enough equities to see a measurable uptick in their paper wealth.

Were an insider in the Federal Reserve to suffer pangs of conscience powerful enough to trigger a release of data documenting Fed manipulation and intervention of the financial markets, then the Empire's domestic agenda might suffer a fatal blow of truth.

12. A republic has little to fear from transparency and much to fear from Elites' shadowy secrets. Empires have much to fear from transparency, as they depend on Elites' control of shadow worlds kept secret from the citizenry.

A republic has a public forum, an Empire has a Coliseum serving entertainment and distraction.

No wonder the Imperial Project fears and loathes WikiLeaks; they fear what their citizenry might do once they know the truth.

Is the American Empire acting in the best interests of the U.S. and its citizenry? Though the two are being "sold" as identical, both to the world and to American citizens, the two are separate entities. The United States will endure if its empire vanishes.

If you you do not yet see the difference between the two, please read this quote from Patrick Henry:

"But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers.

I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism!

Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... over-reach

*

[The Hacktivist]

...whose intention it is to make Mr. Assange look bad and what he has done, criminal, so that they can create new legislation to not only prosecute him but further censor and shut down parts of the internet.

But think about what you are saying Hacktivist. If ' new legislation to...further censor and shut down parts of the internet' is the net results of Mr. Assange's actions, how can you not suspect that it is also the intended result? Whether intended by him or someone else is largely immaterial.

Mr. Assange is genuine, he is what he claims to be, this has been confirmed without any doubt by those of us who know how to make such confirmations.

At first, what he released from Manning was legit, what we do not know is if thereafter, what he was given, re: the state dept cables, were fed to him for purposes of bringing about "certain ends." That remains a possibility we are considering and looking in to, but this doesnt mean Mr Assange is working for them, they have possibly simply decided to use him for their own evil purposes/agenda and he may have fallen for it unwittingly and unknowingly. This is the big debate within Wikilinks and Anonymous circles at this writing.


Please note that there has been little, if any talk, about finding the person who leaked the documents, who is the person who broke the law, Mr. Assange did not break any laws, he only posted what was given to him, the person who gave it to him is unknown at this time but it is notable that we hear little from the State Dept, FBI etc, as to whom that person may be and what they are doing to find him or her. I find that slightly telling...

More later...

[vanlose kid]

by sgt_doom
on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 14:41
#805674

THE PEOPLE’S BRIEF ON JULIAN ASSANGE AND THE SWEDISH SECURITY STATE



Now, everyone is claiming Assange broke the law, yet it was only a short time ago those rather flimsy charges were brought against him, so allow us to review each and every actual law which was broken in Sweden, Switzerland and Europe leading up to this day.

First, in direct violation of Sweden's secrecy laws, prosecutor Maria Kjellstrand confirmed details of the case to rightwing tabloids when they called her. (Maria Kjellstrand's husband works in the office of the Justice Minister, Beatrice Ask, by the way.)

Next, we see that Chief Prosecutor Eva Finnes, who was brought in to oversee the other prosecutors, threw out the case on a number of grounds: the two women had gotten together to compare notes (corruption of "evidence") and get their stories lined up, prior to going to the police to seek "advice" -- ostensibly such advice-seeking was supposed to grant them immunity from the possibility of being charged with falsely reporting a crime -- yet on close examination of Swedish legal codes they can still be charged with this; also, the two women were witnessed as being friendly with Assange after their supposed "molestations."

(At this point one might be forgiven for assuming this was some type of social mix-up, which various governments quickly took advantage of -- excepting, the first and older accuser, Anna Ardin, was the volunteer who made the various arrangements for Assange's visit to Sweden, which he left for after coming under surveillance in Iceland where, given the low-lying urban architecture, it is very difficult to carry out even a moderately successful surveillance and her prior connections to rightwing anti-Castro groups as well as having worked for one of the Bonnier family's publications -- the Bonnier family being owner of record of the first rightwing tabloid to break the "leaked" story. [Some Swedes claim that this tabloid, Expressen, isn't rightwing; simply anti-leftwing.]

Typically in these situations, where someone from a shoestring-budgeted volunteer operation relies upon another foreign volunteer -- that is the typical SOP or modus operandi of the intel subversion operation (check with any environmental or activist group and you'll find they've experienced this situation in one form or another).)

Then, after much pressure from the Justice Minister, Beatrice Ask, the case is reopened.

Once again, person or persons unknown from the Swedish Prosecution Authority leak details of Assange's file and case to the tabloids -- in violation of Swedish secrecy laws which are supposed to protect the accused prior to trial.

Next, we find Assange and his attorneys repeatedly approaching the Swedish Prosecution Authority to notify them of their availability to be questioned, yet each and every attempt is rebuffed over a forty-one day period! Finally, Assange asks for and is granted permission to leave Sweden --- a most unusual action, given the supposed weighty circumstances of his "crime" --- of course we find out later that the reason for that lengthy wait and allowance to leave Sweden is because no magistrate wishes to take this farce of a flimsy case.

Once in the United Kingdom, again Assange and his attorneys contact the Swedish Prosecution Authority about setting up a video call -- something which the Swedish Prosecution Authority HAS done in the past -- but are again rebuffed.

At this point, one of the accusers, Anna Ardin (the other being Sofia Wilen) leaves or flees to Israel or Gaza, ostensibly to do some charitable work, but curious given the nature of her status as a witness and one of the accusers. (If they seem so suddenly obsessed with returning Assange to face his accusers, it might make some sense, legally speaking, to have his accusers actually at hand!!!)

While the warrant is being sought from Interpol, the Swedish Ministry of Justice rushes into being a law titled: "Sex by surprise" with which they hope to prosecute Assange.

Now while all this is taking place, it is interesting to note that an accused murderer in Stockholm is allowed out on bail, and some suspicious circumstances will shortly take place surrounding a suicide bomber.

But prior to discussing that it should be pointed out that the law firm representing the accused is a high-priced one staffed by two partners, one Claes Borgstrom and his sidekick, the former Minister of Justice (only recently having resigned from that position), Thomas Bodstrom. Also of interest, a former advisor and co-cabinet member of Bodstrom's is Par Nuder, recently appointed a director at Madeleine Albright's Albright Stonebridge Group, which was formed from the merger of the Stonebridge Group (whence came an Obama appointee and campaign manager, Roger Altman, formerly of Evercore Partners and Peter G. Peterson's private equity leveraged buyout giant, the Blackstone Group) and Rahm Emanuel's assistant chief of staff, Mona Sutphen.

It should also be noted that the Stonebridge Group had a strategic partnership with the neocon lobbyist firm, the Civitas Group (made up of those delightful people in their Brooks Brothers suits who invaded and disrupted that famous vote recount down in Florida in the 2000 presidential election!).

Interesting background on Bodstrom, a member of Claes Borgstrom’s law firm representing the two accusers of Wikileaks' Assange, and Bodstrom’s buddy Par Nuder.

From a blog article concerning another AP article rather reminiscent of America's warrantless wiretapping events:


Thursday, June 19, 2008ASSOCIATED PRESS STORY GETS FRA ACT ALL WRONG
The FRA Act is getting some attention in an Associated Press story. Since the AP will define how this piece of legislation is presented in the American media it is important to correct the mistakes and omissions in the story.

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Sweden's Parliament narrowly approved a contentious law Wednesday that gives authorities sweeping powers to eavesdrop on all e-mail and telephone traffic that crosses the Nordic nation's borders. The right-leaning government's slim majority helped secure 143-138 approval, despite strong opposition from left-leaning parties led by Social Democrats.

What the story leaves out is that the law was originally conceived by the socialist prime minister Goran Persson back in 1995 after he had given an infamous speech, saying that "we shall all speak well of our country" and "I will personally stigmatize anyone who criticizes our country abroad". A pretty stark statement coming from a Western European prime minister. It is, unfortunately, indicative of what kind of politician Mr. Persson was. And he held on to his belief that it was somehow within his jurisdiction - his right, in fact - as a prime minister to spy on his citizens. So in 2004 his closest henchman, Par Nuder, and minister of justice, Thomas Bodstrom, finally wrote a law that allowed the government to use computer technology for unlimited surveillance of the population. (By that time computer technology had advanced to a level where they felt comfortable implementing a system of this type.) The center-right government has taken the idea and run with it, not realizing that they are carrying the water for the socialists who now will win the 2010 election based on their no to this law - a law that they will then keep in place and use against the very politicians who made it the law of the land.

http://expatswedereport.blogspot.com/20 ... w-all.html


Now if all that isn't strange enough, we have PayPal, in direct violation of national, international and cash transfer laws (not to mention something called the WTO Financial Services Agreement, I believe), freezing, or effectively stealing, Wikileaks money, although absolutely NO court orders, nor any legal documentation, had bee issued to do such.

The PayPal CEO will later claim it was due to pressure from the US State Department --- something supposed to be illegal in the USA, according to the last time I checked. Now some might say that Wikileaks had violated PayPal's policy, but when that took place no charge had yet been made against Assange, nor has one so far gone through any legal system convicting Assange of anything, nor does PayPay have any history of doing anything remotely similar against any and all money launderers, criminal activities, etc., utilizing their services.

Around the same timeframe, a Swiss bank also freezes, or effectively steals, the Wikileaks' account -- claiming that the street address given their PostFinance bank (within the Swiss post office, and normally used by travellers, immigrants, etc.) was a phoney address, but it was indeed Assange's residential address he was then staying at -- a normally accepted procedure -- and an obvious subterfuge by the Swiss bankster. This is in direct violation of Swiss banking laws, and Euro Union laws, which is why an Icelandic company is in the process of suing them, if the latest news stories I've read are correct.

So we have PayPal, and the Swiss bank, freezing over 100,000 Euros of Wikileaks operating monies.

Of course, there are others who also make life as difficult as possible, even though no charges have been actually leveled, nor any conviction obtained, of course: Tableau Software, of Seattle, WA, USA, who pulls their software license, making the efficient storing of the cables' content more difficult and time-consuming; Amazon (also headquartered in Seattle, WA) pulls their servers from Wikileaks' use, and several other private firms follow suit.

While the aforesaid is occurring, the several Wikileaks' sites are being hammered with denial-of-service attacks by criminals who appear to be tracked back to the US government, curiously enough -- again in violation of existing national and international law, as no charges, nor legal documentation has been filed in this matter.

So, we have a lengthy string of lawbreaking, crimes and criminal activities all directed illegally and unlawfully at Julian Assange and the international Wikileaks' operation, yet when online protesters around the world strike back, THEY are labelled criminal.

Curiously, as almost similar as the surveillance law passed involving Bodstrom and Nuder, is a suicide bomber attack, horrendous yet conveniently knocking much public discussion of Wikileaks off the news; but there are some interesting circumstances surrounding it:


http://www.thelocal.se/30794/20101212/


Military staffer knew about attacks: report

"A Swedish Armed Forces (Försvarsmakten) employee warned an acquaintance to stay clear of an area in central Stockholm on Saturday where, several hours later, two explosions went off in what is being called a terrorist attack."

.......

(To review the connections: prosecutor Maria Kjellstrand’s husband works for Justice Minister, Beatrice Ask, who replaced Thomas Bodstrom in that position, and Bodstrom went to work with Claes Borgstrom at his law firm which quickly volunteered to represent accusers Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen against Assange, and Borgstrom is a friend of the prosecutor-in-charge, Marianne Ny, and Par Nuder is a close confident of Thomas Bodstrom.)

Strange, it is almost like living in an alternate universe where Sweden almost mirrors America?????

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... ent-805674

*


boom!

*

[Simulist]

Mr. Assange is genuine, he is what he claims to be, this has been confirmed without any doubt by those of us who know how to make such confirmations.

Horse feathers.

Mr. Assange may be genuine. One might even presume him to be genuine, based on the evidence so far. But your claim of being one of an exclusive number that knows "how to make such confirmations" is silly and obvious.

Don't expect that horse to fly very far around here.

[AlicetheKurious]

you've read that, yes, but have you checked?

*

I wasn't sure how, but now I tried, using Google, and to my surprise I was able to do it quite easily. I found the cable about the Saudi King Abdullah here:

The Need to Resist Iran

10. (S) The King, Foreign Minister, Prince Muqrin, and
Prince Nayif all agreed that the Kingdom needs to cooperate
with the US on resisting and rolling back Iranian influence
and subversion in Iraq. The King was particularly adamant on
this point, and it was echoed by the senior princes as well.
Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent exhortations to the US
to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons
program. "He told you to cut off the head of the snake," he
recalled to the Charge', adding that working with the US to
roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority
for the King and his government.

11. (S) The Foreign Minister, on the other hand, called
instead for much more severe US and international sanctions
on Iran, including a travel ban and further restrictions on
bank lending. Prince Muqrin echoed these views, emphasizing
that some sanctions could be implemented without UN approval.
The Foreign Minister also stated that the use of military
pressure against Iran should not be ruled out.

So there it is. The cables conflate two separate meetings; the first was between the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, General Petraeus, King Abdullah and three Saudi princes:

US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and
General David Petraeus met with Saudi King Abdullah bin Abd
al-Aziz, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, General
Presidency of Intelligence Chief Prince Muqrin bin Abd
al-Aziz, and Interior Minister Nayif bin Abd al-Aziz during
their April 14-15 visit to Riyadh

The second, in which the Saudi ambassador to the US allegedly quotes the Saudi king, the one that contains the headline-making statement about cutting off the head of the snake, took place a couple of days later between the US Charge d'Affaires and the Saudi ambassador to the US:

In a conversation with the
Charge' on April 17, Saudi Ambassador to the US Adel
al-Jubeir indicated that the King had been very impressed by
the visit of Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, and
al-Jubeir hinted that the Saudi government might announce
changes to its Iraq policy before the President's visit to
Riyadh in mid-May.

In the first meeting, which the king attended, he is quoted only urging US-Saudi cooperation to roll back the spread of Iranian "influence and subversion in Iraq".

The money quote, the one that made banner headlines around the world, is based on the cable's author quoting the US Charge quoting the Saudi ambassador quoting King Abdullah...

Incidentally, the Saudis, through Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, are currently engaged in delicate and extremely important negotiations with Iran. The outcome of these negotiations could have a huge impact on many lives and perhaps even the future of the region. Luckily, both Iran and Saudi Arabia have judiciously chosen to ignore the leaked cables and continue to seek a settlement that both sides can live with.

[DrVolin]

Doctor, it sounds as if you're arguing against publishing secrets beacuse someone might get mad about it.

Karen Silkwood leaked something that made some people mad, and she paid for it. But it made a big difference in the end. So far, Wikileaks has leaked stuff that gives some people an excuse to be mad, but what difference will the leaks themselves make in the end, other than make us all pay for them?

[DrVolin]

Mr. Assange is genuine, he is what he claims to be, this has been confirmed without any doubt by those of us who know how to make such confirmations.

Ok, well allow me not to take your word for it. But I am glad to hear that you guys are looking into the possible motives of the source.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

you've read that, yes, but have you checked?

*

I wasn't sure how, but now I tried, using Google, and to my surprise I was able to do it quite easily. I found the cable about the Saudi King Abdullah.

You can use this site to search through all the currently released cables by keyword: http://ht.ly/3kggO

I don't know if it's a CIA front-end or whatever, it doesn't seem to be directly affiliated with Wikileaks, but I've been using it all week and it's very efficient.

[barracuda]

So far, Wikileaks has leaked stuff that gives some people an excuse to be mad, but what difference will the leaks themselves make in the end, other than make us all pay for them?

I don't know, because clearly the end is not here as of yet. But who exactly is responsible for doing whatever needs to be done for the leaks to make a difference?

[The Hacktivist]

Hacktivist

How do you square what most here might conceive as naieve ( to put it mildly) Mr Assanges notion that 9/11 is a "false conspiracy", particularly in the light of what he uncovers on a regular basis about the nature of Govnts in general, and the USA perhaps in particular ?

Its a good question and I dont know if he is railing against the 9-11 truth movement itself or simply doesnt believe it was an inside job et al. Some have suggested that he is playing down the whole 9-11 thing because he is holding smoking gun information in his insurance file. I cant confirm is that is true or not I do not know Mr Assange personally, I work with people who do and I work with others who have done the research needed to absolutely confirm that Mr. Assange is who he says he is and Wikileaks is a grass roots organization with no funding or help from any intelligence agencies whether it be the CIA or Mossad. It is a legit organization that simply takes what whistle blowers offer and posts it for public consumption...my role in this scheme is to protect Mr. Assange and help him get his money back for his legal defense fund, I wont go in to details about the payback operation for obvious reasons but it is effective and someday people will learn not to fuck with the "script kiddies."


I also want to make clear that Anonymous is NOT a bunch of pimple faced teenagers practicing theri hacking skills, it is a group made up of professionals from all walks of life who are highly ETHICAL and highly motivated and who believe very strongly in exposing corruption, especially as it pertains to war, at the highest level of the geopolitical spectrum. These people, including myself, have done the research and it has been confirmed that Mr. Assange is who he says he is and Wikileaks is what it appears to be, this I can assure you but I dont expect you to believe me, I just want to make it clear that this is the case and its been confirmed.

I dont know much about his believes regarding 9-11 as he hasnt commented extensively on it only to say that he doesnt seem to think it was a conspiracy, but that doesnt mean he believes the official story also.

Just let me be clear here, those of you who think this is a posy op and Mr. Assange is part of that are wrong, HE MIGHT BE BEING USED now at this later date since the war diaries were published, hand fed material that THEY want out there which they will use to bring about "CERTAIN ENDS." But this has nothing to do with Mr. Assange, he only posts what he is given and lets the chips fall where they may.


Any more questions just ask away.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Doctor, it sounds as if you're arguing against publishing secrets beacuse someone might get mad about it.

Karen Silkwood leaked something that made some people mad, and she paid for it. But it made a big difference in the end. So far, Wikileaks has leaked stuff that gives some people an excuse to be mad, but what difference will the leaks themselves make in the end, other than make us all pay for them?

If nothing positive is done and no changes for the better arise from the leaks, it won't be a failure on the part of Wikileaks' or Assange. It will be a failure of our society - of us. Their only job is to expose secrets. It's up to others to use that new information - to launch FOIA requests now that they have a better idea of what documents to ask for, to alter their vote or their allegiances, to hold their elected representatives to account for the lies they have told, and hopefully to mount prosecutions of any revealed criminals, where possible, somewhere down the line.

Will those things (especially prosecutions) ever happen? I dunno. But if they don't happen, it won't be Wikileaks' fault.

The Collateral Murder video, as an example, was like a stress-test being run on our civil society, our press, and our systems of military justice, to see if they're still functional, if they still work like they're supposed to. They don't. The total non-reaction, on all levels, to that widely disseminated primary evidence of blatant mass-murder is all that anyone needs to see to know that our society, in it's current form, is fucked. The results are in, and they're conclusive.

There are a lot of people out there who still need convincing of that, though, even if we've all known it for years, and Wikileaks is helping to convince them.

In my opinion.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Any more questions just ask away.

No questions, Mr. Hacktivist, but if you really ARE Anonymous (it's hard to tell, what with you all being so anonymous the whole time) then I want to thank you for the document on the BAE/Al Yamama arms deal scandal which you (if you ARE Anonymous) released a good few years back. Tell the hivemind it was much appreciated.

...Still can't think of anything else to ask, as yet.

[Ben D]

This story seems to have as many twists and turns as an ARG...

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Maybe it is an ARG.

Maybe The Hacktivist is really Th3J3st3r!