The Wikileaks Question

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby sunny » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:18 pm

WTH? He's got more faces than Lon Chaney.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby nathan28 » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:38 pm

SLAD, I pointed out problems with unqualified citation of Emory's "research", but I imagine that's not enough. For your future enjoyment, Emory's droning voice clogs the airways every Monday night at 8 on the otherwise excellent 91.1 FM in the NYC metro, 90.1 upstate.

Project Willow wrote:Don't worry SLAD, Nathan is like a dog chasing its tail, telling him his tail is not a rabbit just ruins his fun.

I'll give it a try though and state that people post items on this discussion board to foster discussion, not to prop some tacitly held political consensus.

(on edit: well, a lot of the time :wink: )


Here's my first post on the WikiLeaks issue:

I wrote:...I would like to know if it's possible to browse any of the old stuff uploaded to wikileaks. Like police reports, college fraternity documents, internal white papers by autocratic regimes, etc. You know, the "everyday" stuff, like memoranda not released to the public on symbols commonly used by pedophile organizations, or white power groups, etc. Right now the only things I can navigate to from the front page are the war logs and war diaries. With google I can get to the "cables" that just broke, and that's it... this could be obnoxious corporate-style "branding" gone into PR 'scandal' overdrive.


I'm pretty sure there's actual content in there and even my own personal speculation, which I repeat later, after making an effort to indicate the problems with Emory, which I had posed as a counter-point to "the consensus" that anything that makes the major press must be a gov't sponsored limited hangout designed to deflect attention from "the real issues" in our personally-favored "My political position is conspiracy theory" like chemtrails/9-11 Truth/RA-MC/drug trafficking/UFOs/JFK.

BTW, being a conspiracy theorist is, as us gov't cognitive infiltrators are here to "nudge" (thanks Cass Sunstein!) those who will listen, not a political position, so how it generates "political" consensus is beyond my circular-reasoning-only intellect. Maybe when I get enough talent to make it to the regional conspiracy theorist semi-finals I'll learn.

Like the OP says:

JackRiddler wrote:...to ask a question in light of the certainty with which some declare Wikileaks to be a psychological operation of one kind or another.

If Wikileaks were genuine, what it would like?

In other words, what would it look like if Wikileaks is an independent group of anti-statist hackers who came together over years in an ad-hoc fashion, who are not working for an undisclosed intelligence operation, who are committed to undermining the rule of secrecy in international politics, who have gotten their hands on caches of classified documents, and who are releasing these to the public?

My answer is that it would look like what we are seeing.

However, if they are not genuine, it would also look like what we are seeing.



P.S., that non-platinum blond/white hair in photographs really makes Emory's theory that Assange is still an active member of the Santiniketan because of he still wears Santiniketan village-of-the-damned-style hair problematic.
Last edited by nathan28 on Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

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

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby Montag » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:50 pm

sunny wrote:WTH? He's got more faces than Lon Chaney.


Yes and where does he find the time, while on the run from people like Carlos the Jackal?
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby barracuda » Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:16 pm

nathan28 wrote:BTW, being a conspiracy theorist is, as us gov't cognitive infiltrators" are here to "nudge" (thanks Cass Sunstein!) those who will listen, not a political position, so how it generates "political" consensus is beyond my circular-reasoning-only intellect.


It does so by ultilising a deformed sort of logical razor, which states that any news item which does not hurt Israel is, by definition, an Israeli zionist plot. And though that is indeed a political position, it's not a very promising one. Even though no one - like, absolutely no one - is surprised that the governments of certain Arab states are politically aligned with Israel in their tut-tutting about a nuclear Iran, the idea that this information is now on the front page of every newspaper on the planet just might be shaking a worldview or two around places like RI. Not that it means much in terms of the feelings of everyday individuals within those states, but for the moment, a bunch of Arab diplomats have to walk around whistling tunelessly and pretending nothing happened. Meanwhile back at ConspiroLand, Julian Assangstein and the ZioLeaks organisation have fallen from heros to traitors in the course of three days, before one-tenth of the two-hundred thousand cables have even hit the release stage.

I personally enjoy Josh Marshall's take on the release of the cables, which he essentially views as good ol' fashioned window breaking:

A First Take on the Cables
Josh Marshall | November 29, 2010, 3:10PM
We've given explicit marching orders to our editors and reporters not to get distracted by the 'meta' part of the wikileaks story and just focus on the details unearthed. So let me take the opportunity to perhaps contradict those marching orders and share some initial thoughts on the meta front.

First, we're covering all the details we can find. So that puts some real limits on how much we can credibly criticize the way these cables came to light. I'm also not sure we would have made different decisions than, say, The New York Times, if we'd been given the opportunity to report out the cables in advance of their release. And of course we here at TPM like every other news organization routinely file FOIA requests on the reasoning that it's in the public interest to get as much as possible of the inner workings of government exposed to the public.

But what Wikileaks is doing is categorically different. Many readers have written in to say -- without knowing quite how to put their finger on it -- that the indiscriminate nature of the release, just everything they could get their hands on -- seems more like an attack on the US government itself than an effort to inform American citizens about what their government is doing on their behalf. And even though I'm in the business of unearthing and sharing information, my gut says they're right.

That wasn't the case with some of the earlier revelations about Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm thinking particularly about the video footage of the helicopter shooting unarmed Iraqis that Wikileaks released earlier. That's the sort of information no government ever wants to see released. It is damaging. But it's also truth and something citizens need to evaluate what their government is doing in their name. And truth about important facts outweighs nebulous claims 'damage'. Mainly governments -- all governments -- just don't want their wrongdoing aired in public and they all use the inherent powers of the state to make sure it doesn't happen. But this indiscriminate mass release seems less like journalism than a form of informational anarchism, which has the collateral effect of revealing a lot of interesting and illuminating details about American foreign policy (on Iran especially) but has the basic aim of making it impossible to run a State Department or Foreign Ministry.

It makes sense if you think of the US government or its foreign policy apparatus as being basically a corrupt enterprise or one involved in systematic wrongdoing across the board. But if you don't, it seems much more questionable.

Another way of looking at this is that different parties involved have different legitimate equities at stake. The government has every right to keep its internal communications from appearing on a web a year or two after they take place. And in some cases, though classification is notoriously overused, they have plenty of reason to resort to classification. And journalists are mainly, though not absolutely, in the business of sharing information with readers. The government's right to be upset; journalists are write to share it with their readers. As David Kurtz just said in a discussion he and I were just having, you don't need to have a universal theory of right and wrong on this one. Still, I don't recognize what Wikileaks is doing here as some righteous act of government transparency. It's more like an attack, albeit one with consequences which can easily be overstated.

I realize in writing this that I'm trying to draw lines more clearly and brightly than the facts may bear. And as I've said, we're eagerly gobbling up the information. So I put these comments forward not as a definitive read but more as an initial reaction meant to give you a sense of my first take and get your reactions to help me refine my own.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby DrVolin » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Jack, you downplay the obvious alternative that Wikileaks is genuine and a conduit for disinfo, spin, and limited hangouts (wikipipeline).

Wintler, a good advertising agency or a broadway producer would have no trouble orchestrating this minor bit of political theatre.
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby justdrew » Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:05 pm

nathan28 wrote:that gets bookended onto his podcasts has some really awesome psychedelic-garage-punk and I'm happy to discover it


FYI - some of the other shows you should checkout are in particular:
http://www.wfmu.org/playlists
Thursday Noon−3pm
Saturday three shows from 11am on through 6pm
Sunday mornings too

trying to keep up with the firehouse of awesome coming out of that url takes up most of my casual listening time these days.




I still listen to Emory sometimes, but his attitude toward the gaza flotilla disgusted me a bit more than I was expecting. He started out as a JFK researcher, and maybe he's got a point with the "Underground Reich" thing - I don't think the existence of such an underground org is out of the question, but his absolute "Israel can do no wrong" attitude last few years is annoying and at times disgusting. I don't think any "Underground Reich" would be carrying on any animus toward Israel and the AIPAC types have long gone out of their way to try to deny any such thing, even denying complicity of the people that built up the nazi's in the first place. It's a very confusing area and no certainty seems available.

the side one/two thing is part of his whole collection of traditional emoryisms. "skipping down" (when reading from a long article), "the remarkable and deadly Bormann organization," etc.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby anothershamus » Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:35 pm

Ok, I can see where you guys are going, to tie Dave Emory and Jullian Assange together, how about...
... don't shoot the messenger.

They are both just putting out the info.

If the info gets too hot, who do we crucify?

I do like the attention that the new wikileaks is getting, even though it's just a bunch of gossip! What about all the REAL LIFE WAR INFO? A paltry second to how Berlusconi is a vain something or other. Priorities people!
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:54 am

DrVolin wrote:Jack, you downplay the obvious alternative that Wikileaks is genuine and a conduit for disinfo, spin, and limited hangouts (wikipipeline).

Wintler, a good advertising agency or a broadway producer would have no trouble orchestrating this minor bit of political theatre.


I may have neglected that in my outline so far, but I wouldn't downplay it. It's possible and if the cables keep coming out at the current rate - second night and it's just 278 of 251,287 at the Cable Viewer site, so we should be getting there in 2021 or something - and if the spin continues to be this controlled, I'll be ready to consider worse.

I think it's reasonable to ask the questions as follows:

1) What material does Wikileaks actually have? (You can't complain about them not publishing what they don't have.)

2) Who are the authors? (In this case, State Department.)

3) What are the sources? (In this case, supposedly, Bradley Manning who isn't in a position to talk. There are other possibilities.)

4) How much and what is being released, and in what order? Who's deciding? (Until now, it seems, four big pubs who supposedly have the full cache are picking stories from a tiny number of cables, and the Times playing its own rather transparent game using access through the Guardian. Is Wikileaks so slow in getting out the rest because of the attack, or what's the story?)

5) What spin are the governments and corporate media trying to put on it?

Wikileaks has influence over 3 and presumably control over 4, if it's genuine and can get around the reported attacks. They can also criticize 5 at some point, and thus influence how the spin is perceived. For example, if they are, as in your scenario, being played for patsies.

I was impressed by the first two big releases. They had real goods and got them out fast. This one is running in a very different, so far disturbing fashion.

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

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

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby smiths » Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:00 am

i probably havent read enough,
but from just picking up the themes as they come through the media i havent really heard or read anything genuinely explosive,


in the first round a target, Pakistan, which had been talked about a lot is named as troublesome and somehow to blame in afghanistan,

in the new round we get more focus on Iran and conveniently we are also told that china isnt really into North Korea anymore ...

russia is a mafia state, putin and berlesconi are close, arab leaders loyal to the US want an attack on Iran,


these documents, if genuine are a temporary headache for the US, not much more
if it is not genuine, if it is instead the largest and most sophisticated psyops the Controllers have yet attempted, then it certainly does fit, because its the same targets all over again, nothing about high level elite participation in corporate gun running, drugs trading, prostitution and slavery

a co-ordinated data dump that isnt a dump, explosive stories that are not explosive ...


who knows at this point?
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby smiths » Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:12 am

These megaleaks, as you call them that, we haven’t seen any of those from the private sector.

No, not at the same scale for the military.

Will we?

Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.

Is it a U.S. bank?

Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.

One that still exists?
Yes, a big U.S. bank.

The biggest U.S. bank?

No comment.

When will it happen?

Early next year. I won’t say more.


"While we refuse to pass judgment on Assange's character, and his motivations, it appears that he may have finally figured out that to enact change in a country, you have to go not after the politicians or even the military industrial complex. After all both of those are puppets for the moneyed interests. One has to go after the very heart of the financial oligarchy. Money always has made the world go round, never more so than in the US currently. Perhaps Assange can redeem himself of all attacks on his persona if he does succeed in disclosing something that is beyond mere watercooler talk and actually leads to at least one major prosecution. After all, the US' own regulatory and enforcement mechanisms are corrupt beyond repair, and completely unable to do so on their own...


http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wikile ... ig-us-bank
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby AlicetheKurious » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:39 am

smiths wrote:Perhaps Assange can redeem himself of all attacks on his persona if he does succeed in disclosing something that is beyond mere watercooler talk and actually leads to at least one major prosecution.


Yeah, "early next year". Start holding your breath NOW.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby anothershamus » Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:24 am

He is just supplying a venue for getting the info out not creating it himself. He's not really even a reporter, just the editor, if this info was coming through an insider to the New York Times or Washington Post, they would publish it and nobody would attack the editor.
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby The Consul » Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:27 am

It is like Wittgenstein's one armed brother playing chess against a player piano.
Is it real, or is it Memorex?
It is information.
It appears much of it is verifiable fact of various episodes forgotten or unknown of embarrasing indecencies of men at war and empires at play.
The game to be played rests in a diamond that stretches from gag orders and lawsuits and corporate foreplay bowing confidently to the masses slumbering, waiting to be told in bold, red headlines:
IT'S OVER! EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY!

If Wikileaks is a psyop it is part of a max factored measurement to see if the zombies in the bleechers have any life left in them at all.

So far, doesn't look like it...

But just what would it take, at this stage, anyway?
" Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."
— B. Traven
User avatar
The Consul
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Ompholos, Disambiguation
Blog: View Blog (13)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:06 pm

.

For today only -- we'll see about tomorrow -- I've been sold on the goodness of the ongoing Wikileaks release (which is still only up to 290 total on the "Cable Viewer" site, I'm not even looking at that before it cracks four digits or 1/250th of the total) by none other than Mr. 21-year CIA veteran Bob Baer, now a columnist for that flagship of pure journalism, TIME magazine, the Henry Luce zombie-thing that curiously is still publishing.

Baer was just on the WNYC/NPR Brian Lehrer Show and decried the release in plain and pained language, giving as his examples the following:

1) it may make it harder for "us" to conduct illegal surprise drone bombings in Yemen and pretend that it's actually Yemenese forces doing the bombing;

2) it may make it harder for "us" to get clearance for air routes over Arab countries to bomb Iran, if "we" decide that's what we're going to do, which decision really should be left to "us" as he understands "us," which is to say, not you, dear reader, but them;

3) in general, it gets in the way of states saying one thing to the public and pursuing a different, contrary policy in secret.

He specifically said that exposing "duplicity" is bad, as this is essential to diplomacy. It's especially bad to let Arab peoples know (or to confirm by documentation what is already obvious) that their unelected tyrants are telling them one thing and in secret saying something else to their US backers.

Although Baer (author of a book on the "New Iranian Superpower," no less, now I'm scared) claims to have supported the Pentagon Papers release back in the day (when he would have been 19 years old and apparently at Culver Military Academy in Indiana, according to his bio on Wikipedia), he is incensed that anyone other than the Executive branch should be deciding what is secret and what is not.

During the morning's discussion you also had a series of very angry Joe Blow callers demanding the death of Julian Assange, stat, including one guy who was pretty sure that if only this was still the 1970s, Assange would already be dead, disappeared. This one offered that he would do the job himself, if the government would only give him the gun and point him at the target. Lehrer, who is extremely stingy on giving time to callers and always looking to spin whatever is said to his next talking point, let these guys go on for much longer than is usual for him. He repeatedly announced upcoming segments with the tag line, "More reactions as the Wikileaks information BOMB EXPLODES ON EVERY CONTINENT," which besides making me gag also prompts the question: When do we get the Antarctica memos?

So yeah, notwithstanding the so-far extremely limited release and the bomb-Iran spin being put on it by the gatekeeper press organs who so far get to pick and choose which cables to release in which way, for today I'm a big fan of Assange -- whatever he might really turn out to be.

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

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

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wikileaks Question

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:44 pm

Image

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ssy-cables

Some good comments, including:

EastFinchleyite

30 November 2010 12:39AM

The single thing that stands out for me is before Wikileaks published these confidential emails, reports, and other documents, access to them was restricted to only 3 million other US personnel.

3 million.

The only people who didn't know what was going on was the general public; the poor sods like me who have to pay for this incompetence.

If it wasn't so tragic it would be a good laugh.

Second thoughts; it's both tragic and funny.


Although note that as with most people, still employing the past tense ("published") for something that is still in the future.

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

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

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests