JackRiddler wrote:If the point was to have a spook meeting, it could have been arranged at a different time and manner without need of any cover story.
Not necessarily. Few places on earth are as secure as US embassies or ambassadors' residences, guaranteed to be bug-free and otherwise controlled environments in every way. It would have been far more suspicious for Assange to be seen sneaking furtively into the embassy or the ambassador's house or whatever. A cocktail party, with a suitable story from a "Leftist" activist, provides cover and at the same time is an ideal setting for this ultimately private conversation between Assange, who claims that the US was actively hostile to him at the time, and the CIA official.
JackRiddler wrote:Imagine applying your forensic approach to the following:
AlicetheKurious on Jan 27, 2008 wrote:The very next day, I was having tea at the house of a Western ambassador, along with a small group of women. As we were going inside, a funny little mutt came running towards us. "This is 'Yalla' (Arabic slang for 'hurry up!')," the ambassador told us. "I picked him up on a beach in Gaza."
I asked him if he'd been the ambassador to Israel, and he said yes.
The Canadian ambassador's gracious invitation to a small group of Canadian expat housewives, including me, who had been meeting once a month over coffee and cake for years, is hardly comparable. Unlike previous ambassadors, who had wives to do this kind of thing, he had kindly offered to give us a tour of his residence himself, which is a lovely 19th century villa, and which had just been painstakingly renovated (at Canadian taxpayer expense, natch) to preserve and highlight its historical elements. It was a small group tour and a group tea afterward, with no private conversations at all. Plus, I wasn't hiding out in some "bunker", engaging in secret activities and claiming that the Canadians are after me. Canada is my homeland no less than Egypt, and though, like many Egyptians and Canadians I have serious objections to the current governments in power, the only embassy "list" I'm on is the regular guest list for embassy events. Not much grist for the forensic mill, I'm afraid.
nathan28 wrote:So far, this is my understanding of the anti-WikiLeaks crowd.
Some of the people who are "questioning WikiLeaks" have every reason to engage in that questioning. What I see happening, however, is quite confusing.
One assertion is that WikiLeaks can't possibly have legit documents, or the documents it has are a limited hangout. This is a curious assertion, considering that so far less than 1/100 have seen print.
First, until the other 99/100 cables are released, those 1/100 are all we have to work with. Second, keep in mind that the leaked cables were all written by bureaucrats employed by the US State Dept. By definition, they are a biased and partisan source of "intelligence", much of it hearsay. The simple rule of thumb of dealing with known biased sources is this: if the "data" supports their propaganda line, it should be given low credibility. If it contains "data" that significantly counteracts their propaganda line, it should be given high credibility. The more damaging the information is to the source's core ideology, the more credible it is, especially when corroboration is unavailable or ambiguous. Needless to say, claims or allegations must be followed up with proper investigations in order to become established facts. But when investigations are blocked, that in itself can be considered supporting evidence; it's not proof, but it further bolsters the credibility of the allegations in the absence of proof.
In the case of Wikileaks, even assuming that the cables have not been seeded or filtered, the source is undeniably highly partisan and biased. Other than the gossip "noise", the so-called
intelligence consists almost entirely of uncorroborated claims that amplify the zionist-dominated US State Dept.'s propaganda against its prime targets like Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China and its newest target, Turkey, among others. Israel's gleeful reaction to the Wikileaks' "corroboration" of what Israel has been saying all along thus makes perfect sense in that context.
In other words, the revelation that US State Dept.'s own employees write cables that happen to echo the US State Dept.'s own propaganda is being described as "evidence", as in this typical piece by the rabid zionist David Frum, writing in CNN:
WikiLeaks builds case against IranThat's like me accusing my neighbor, whom I've been harassing and threatening, of stealing my lawnmower, without any evidence, and then somebody using the same accusation written in a private letter I wrote to my mother as corroboration for my claim. In both cases, I am the only source, I am biased, and there is still no credible evidence.
So the problem with the contents of the Wikileaks is that where they echo the US/Israeli propaganda, they have low to no credibility, but they are hyped as "explosive", "corroboration", "proof", etc., something that has been pointed out by a great number of analysts but oddly enough, not Assange himself, who continues to insist that the leaks represent a blow against "American imperialism" and "the globalist agenda". Despite the fact that the leaks have on the contrary been used to promote both
more war and
more global intervention against the very targets that make up the neocons' wish-list, Assange has, tellingly, not made one peep of protest. The smoking gun here is NOT that the warmongering propaganda media has used the cables in that way, but that Assange has not seen fit to protest this AT ALL.
nathan28 wrote:The claim was made that Assange was travelling freely when he was not. The claim was made that he was "in the open" when he was staying somewhere in secret. The point was, essentially, that because he wasn't dead, he was one of "Them". Assange was then hit with some very questionably charges--not using a condom--and then the charges were elevated to rape, the second he faced potential charges for the same acts--one prosecutor IIRC having dismissed the first effort as bogus. The claim was made that this was nothing more than theater. I have no way of knowing whether it is, but you have no way of knowing whether it is not. Then Assange was arrested. Again, I am not particularly sure what the contention is here, save to say, it seems to be that the idea is that he was arrested, not assassinated by a drone with one of those fancy laser-guided 25mm RPGs in broad daylight, therefore, he must be one of them, or it is theater. Then Assange was put in solitary confinement with an elevated level of isolation. Again, the suggestion seems to be that it is all for show. Now Assange has had bail set, so that must prove it was all a show--never mind that he's still in the hole, that his bail has been challenged and that bail still entails a set of conditions designed to track all of his movements.
As you say, neither you nor I know for a fact whether all this is a show or not. All we can do is notice that Assange's treatment as the maverick star of a media circus simply does not fit the usual pattern of how whistle-blowers and other inconvenient people are treated, who are usually quietly kidnapped or suicided or have strange car or plane or home accidents under cover of media silence or terse media coverage. David Kelly, Gary Webb, Mordecai Vanunu and of course,
William Colby come to mind. Neither do the charges against him fit the usual pattern of spurious associations with "al-Qaeda" or other "terrorist" groups or other accusations that specifically target his ideological motives and Wikileaks' credibility. None of this is conclusive in any way, but it's one among other factors that are worth keeping in mind.
nathan28 wrote:...*every* individual who has offered up that speculation has, in other venues, suggested that there is information being kept from us, that we just need to learn, that etc., etc., IOW: they are decrying ignorance and the lack of evidence.
Suddenly, handed evidence, they claim that nothing good can result from it.
That sort of sentiment borders on pathology. I consider the "everyone knows" theory exactly the same type of theory: it says that because "everyone knows" that, e.g., Shell Oil had penetrated every level of Nigeria's gov't, we don't need to get documentary evidence of that, so because WikiLeaks has created a furor and firestorm, it's worse to "know" without proof, than to know with proof, because now real interests are at stake.
There is arrogance in that attitude. It means that when you 'knew' something was the case, it was important; now that you and the rest of the world have proof, it's no longer special and no longer privileging to 'know' it. The moment it slipped the surly bonds of your imagination and entered into reality it lost its fun. Either that, or it was a stance of total pessimism, which like the agent theory is beyond being disputed. If you argued that things were bad and getting worse before, and you argue that things will be worse now after, it makes no sense to treat Assange as some demon on account of there suddenly being a really-existing material objective cause for whatever made things "worse", which previously you were content to attribute to some fantasy, some imaginary, 'spiritual' and illusory process at work in your mind.
That last suggestion, which is implicit in these arguments, is nothing more than an abrogation of responsibility. You claim to care about some issue, and you claim the issue is important, and you even claim that it threatens established authorities. But the moment those authorities themselves see that the issue is a threat, you shirk, you run. You are literally hoping to take something away from authority and entrenched interests and liars in high places.
Nathan, you are misrepresenting the argument. What I and others are saying is that the Wikileaks so far looks exactly like a textbook example of a limited hangout.
A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves
the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details. It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving
a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.
A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure
is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or
ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.
Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for
a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."
Link
All the hype notwithstanding, the Wikileaks in effect provide very little or no actual information that damages the US or Israel's ability to pursue their violent hegemonic agenda -- on the contrary. The meager crumbs thrown to the anti-war camp appear perfectly calibrated to cause the least amount of damage to the empire and at the same time provide a phony aura of credibility to the really big lies that form the core of imperialist propaganda.
nathan28 wrote:Currently, as you read this, Bradley Manning is in solitary confinement. Julian Assange is in solitary confinement. No doubt SIRPNet admins have lost their jobs. You claim to care about freedom, you claim to 'know' that "They" seek to curtail it, but the moment something shifts there agenda, the moment something new burst forth and there is an opportunity to fight--you decry the circumstances, you blame those who did act and who did face repercussions.
Again, you are misrepresenting the argument. Nobody here has justified any abuse of anybody's legal and human rights including Assange's, let alone Manning's. Regardless of whether I believe that Wikileaks or Assange are part of a psyop or not, it is the global imperialist bullies who give themselves the exclusive license to define freedom in order to justify enslaving others, and to define rights in order to deprive others of theirs. The fact that I believe Assange and Wikileaks to be a psyop is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to my deep conviction that the denial of even one person's freedom and human rights effectively denies all of ours, by making them not rights at all, but privileges selectively granted. So there is no contradiction in my deep suspicion of what Mr. Assange and Wikileaks really are, and at the same time my fear and loathing of those who support this kind of abuse against anybody.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
...
!
