Cryptome founder:"Wikileaks is a fraud"

[Elvis]

I am certain of one thing: if I was working at CIA-DOD-State Dept-spook central, I'd be working my ass off to discredit and cast suspicion on Assange and Wikileaks in whatever way I could. Circumspection, in spades, seems in order.

In other words, you're sure that anyone who doesn't fall hook, line and sinker for every lousy southern-strategy psyop to come down the pike is working for that *ahem* in the White House. Thanks Elvis, I'll keep that in mind.

Well, that's not what I said, and putting words in my mouth is a little akin to putting thoughts and motives into Assanage's head when, to my mind, more caution is advised. Who's falling for what?---I really don't know, and if those who are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that Wikileaks is a setup turn out to be right, I'll be the first to eat my dunce hat. But things are so murky it's difficult to ascertain much for sure.

So just by lumping the DOD-NSA with the state department, you're giving in to the propaganda

I included State since the cables originated there, and it is well known as a CIA colony, as has been mentioned, and I really doubt Madame Secretary is all that delighted with the cables' release. I think it's a minor point; feel free to substitute 'NSA' or 'shadow government' etc. for State Department, my larger point stands.

Anyway, "the diplomatists," as H.G. Wells quaintly called them, have always been a source of trouble and intrigue and maybe we ought to start throwing a little backscatter radiation on their privileged pouches.

I'm glad that yours and Montag's arguments, and even Alice's more narrow take, are represented here for a thorough examination of what's going on, but I see leaps in logic based on assumptions, models which may or may not reflect the reality. I could dig up a pithy quote about certainty but will once again just call for a little more rigor, or at least a healthy dose of doubt.

[lupercal]

I included State since the cables originated there, and it is well known as a CIA colony, as has been mentioned ...

Mentioned where? Here, perchance, by a certain high-volume poster who seems remarkably interested in managing perceptions of the latest intel hoaxes and has casually "mentioned" this non-fact repeatedly which is why I pointed out that it's a load of horseshit in the first place?

I see leaps in logic based on assumptions, models which may or may not reflect the reality.

Exactimundo, and "State ... is well known as a CIA colony" is just such an assumption. For example: did you know the state department has its own intelligence division? And that it disagreed with the CIA's notoriously bogus assessment of Saddam's pre-war WMD capability?

AFTER THE WAR: INTELLIGENCE; Agency Disputes C.I.A. View On Trailers as Weapons Labs
By DOUGLAS JEHL, NYT Published: June 26, 2003

WASHINGTON, June 25 — The State Department's intelligence division is disputing the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons, United States government officials said today.

In a classified June 2 memorandum, the officials said, the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said it was premature to conclude that the trailers were evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program, as President Bush has done. The disclosure of the memorandum is the clearest sign yet of disagreement between intelligence agencies over the assertion, which was produced jointly by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency and made public on May 28 on the C.I.A. Web site. Officials said the C.I.A. and D.I.A. did not consult with other intelligence agencies before issuing the report.

The report on the trailers was initially prepared for the White House, and Mr. Bush has cited it as proof that Iraq indeed had a biological weapons program, as the United States has repeatedly alleged, although it has yet to produce any other conclusive evidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/world ... -labs.html

And did you notice that wikifraud is releasing state department cables, embarrassing the secretary of state? Are you starting to get the picture?

p.s. barracuda, after you get back from recess and have your nap, you might want to reread the Constitution, specifically article 2 section 2, which lays out the president's powers. Notice that these do include the conduct of foreign affairs, but do not include extra-judicial killing, torture, rendition, assassination, secret prisons, MK programs, or spying on Americans:

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

And when the CIA releases its annual budget get back to me.

[barracuda]

p.s. barracuda, after you get back from recess

Seems to me you're the one gettin' schooled here, boy.

[lupercal]

^ Seems to me you forgot to do your homework.

[barracuda]

I'm just letting you in on the realities. That constitution you like to quote? If you check your local newspapers from time to time, you'll notice that nobody's enforcing those laws.

[barracuda]

I included State since the cables originated there, and it is well known as a CIA colony, as has been mentioned ...

Mentioned where? Here, perchance, by a certain high-volume poster who seems remarkably interested in managing perceptions of the latest intel hoaxes and has casually "mentioned" this non-fact repeatedly which is why I pointed out that it's a load of horseshit in the first place?

When peers and comrades are discussing a subject of mutual interest, common knowledge is often mentioned casually.

Official cover.

Non-official cover.

Is this news to you? During the Plame investigation, you couldn't throw a stick without hitting half a dozen of the usual suspects spelling it out for those who might be unfamiliar with the terrain. For example:

LARRY JOHNSON: When you work under official cover, you are acknowledged to be a U.S. government employee, but you’re usually perceived as either a State Department employee or Department of Defense or Department of Energy or some other federal agency. And when you travel overseas, you have a black passport, which is a diplomatic passport. If you are caught in the act of doing espionage, you are protected under that black passport by the Geneva Convention, and you will not be executed. You may spend a few days in jail, but ultimately, you will be released.

Valerie, however, traveled without the benefit of a diplomatic passport

Notice that these do include the conduct of foreign affairs, but do not include extra-judicial killing, torture, rendition, assassination, secret prisons, MK programs, or spying on Americans...

...or the state department, for that matter, right?

Let's do the Section 2 thing again...

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

See that? I moved the emphasis there just to be on the safe side, because I wouldn't want to further derail the thread in order to explain to you exactly why it is that the justice department and the V.A. aren't unconstitutional. As well, according to the law that Congress thought proper to enact, the CIA is permitted to break the law, and it doesn't have to disclose its budget to the public.

I'm opposed to that, myself, but on political rather than constitutional grounds - basically because it's not unconstitutional.

[Elvis]

...seems remarkably interested in managing perceptions

Not sure exactly what you mean here but aren't any of us with a viewpoint trying to get others to perceive its value? Or does the sexy phrase "perception management" imply something sinister?

this non-fact [State Dept. as a CIA colony]

I see that Barracuda has addressed this rather definitively, so, moving on....

did you know the state department has its own intelligence division?

Yeah. So?...

And that it disagreed with the CIA's notoriously bogus assessment of Saddam's pre-war WMD capability?

Yeah. So? By itself it means nothing, and even in the context of everything else we know, it proves nothing (unless one is already convinced).

And did you notice that wikifraud is releasing state department cables, embarrassing the secretary of state?

If "Secret"-classified State Departments cables is what you get, that's what you release. 3,000,000 people had access to those cables; how many have access to Top Secret cables? Or super-double-secret-cosmic-whatever cables? A cursory check (subject to better sourcing when I have more time):

Top Secret clearances, in general, afford one access to data that affects national security, counterterrorism/counterintelligence, or other highly sensitive data. There are far fewer individuals with TS clearances than Secret clearances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance

Chances of a disaffected private accessing and releasing this level is far more remote than with mere Secret.

Then there's the real juice:

As with TS clearances, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearances are assigned only after one has been through the rigors of a Single Scope Background Investigation and a special adjudication process for evaluating the investigation. SCI access, however, is assigned only in "compartments." See Compartmentalization (intelligence). These compartments are necessarily separated from each other with respect to organization, so an individual with access to one compartment will not necessarily have access to another [op.cit.]

The gold---the smoking guns, to mix metaphors---would be Compartmented, reducing access and risk of release by magnitudes.

Any way you look at it, mere "Secret" cables are by far the most likely to get out.

And we've only seen the relative thimble-ful of leaked cables, cherry-picked by the likes of the NY Times to reflect "PTB" aims.

Are you starting to get the picture?

That's a straight line I won't touch, it'd be a cheap shot. (oops)

[hanshan]

...seems remarkably interested in managing perceptions

Not sure exactly what you mean here but aren't any of us with a viewpoint trying to get others to perceive its value? Or does the sexy phrase "perception management" imply something sinister?

this non-fact [State Dept. as a CIA colony]

I see that Barracuda has addressed this rather definitively, so, moving on....

did you know the state department has its own intelligence division?

Yeah. So?...

And that it disagreed with the CIA's notoriously bogus assessment of Saddam's pre-war WMD capability?

Yeah. So? By itself it means nothing, and even in the context of everything else we know, it proves nothing (unless one is already convinced).

And did you notice that wikifraud is releasing state department cables, embarrassing the secretary of state?

If "Secret"-classified State Departments cables is what you get, that's what you release. 3,000,000 people had access to those cables; how many have access to Top Secret cables? Or super-double-secret-cosmic-whatever cables? A cursory check (subject to better sourcing when I have more time):

Top Secret clearances, in general, afford one access to data that affects national security, counterterrorism/counterintelligence, or other highly sensitive data. There are far fewer individuals with TS clearances than Secret clearances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance

Chances of a disaffected private accessing and releasing this level is far more remote than with mere Secret.

Then there's the real juice:

As with TS clearances, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearances are assigned only after one has been through the rigors of a Single Scope Background Investigation and a special adjudication process for evaluating the investigation. SCI access, however, is assigned only in "compartments." See Compartmentalization (intelligence). These compartments are necessarily separated from each other with respect to organization, so an individual with access to one compartment will not necessarily have access to another [op.cit.]

The gold---the smoking guns, to mix metaphors---would be Compartmented, reducing access and risk of release by magnitudes.

Any way you look at it, mere "Secret" cables are by far the most likely to get out.

And we've only seen the relative thimble-ful of leaked cables, cherry-picked by the likes of the NY Times to reflect "PTB" aims.

Are you starting to get the picture?

That's a straight line I won't touch, it'd be a cheap shot. (oops)

(...&...)

(edited for bolding)

[Plutonia]

Uh oh. A singularly damaging bit of real information (as opposed to speculative) for JA, and I'm the one that found it. Go figure.

Wait a minute! Why is his friend and admirer Birgitta Jonsdottir spilling the beans? Another jealous grudge perhaps?

Julian Assange wined and dined at US Embassy

By Andrew Gilligan

Julian Assange was a guest at a US Embassy cocktail party less than a year ago.

To the United States, Julian Assange may now be Public Enemy Number One. Some American politicians have even called for his execution.

But less than a year ago, the founder of WikiLeaks was officially entertained at a US Embassy cocktail party by one of the very diplomats whose secrets he would soon spill to the world.

At the reception, held at the US ambassador's residence in Reykjavik, Iceland, Mr Assange chatted with Sam Watson, the embassy's deputy chief of mission.

He was already sitting on dozens of Mr Watson's classified cables at the time of the December party, including embarrassing details about America's and Britain's role following the collapse of Iceland's banks which were later published to widespread outrage in the local media.

"He certainly had fun at the party," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic MP and former activist in WikiLeaks. "He went as my guest. I said it would be a bit of a prank to take him and see if they knew who he was. I don't think they had any idea."

Mr Assange's site had already published dozens of leaks embarrassing to the US, including secret Guantanamo Bay detainee handling manuals and the full emails of Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate. The US State Department condemned the manuals' publication as "a criminal act."

Mr Assange went straight to the party from WikiLeaks' Icelandic base, known as "the bunker," where he was working on the release of a top-secret US Army video showing an attack on civilians in Iraq.

By the time of the party WikiLeaks had also already taken delivery of around 600,000 classified US Army logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, released earlier this year, plus the 250,000 secret US embassy cables which it is releasing now.

"I thought it would be a bit boring to go on my own," said Ms Jonsdottir. "But the irony was that I went to collect him from his guesthouse and couldn't find him, so just went back to work and didn't even go myself. I found out later he'd just decided to go on his own and got in by saying he was my guest. He said he'd spent a long time talking to Mr Watson."

A confidential cable written by Mr Watson, published by WikiLeaks, detailed discussions between him and Ian Whiting, the British ambassador to Reykjavik.

Mr Whiting wanted to block a proposed to hold a referendum on whether Iceland should repay the British Government after many Britons lost money in the collapse of the Reykjavik bank Icesave.

After the collapse, the British government refunded individual savers in Icesave from its own deposit protection scheme. However, institutional savers, including many local authorities, have not been repaid, and Britain continues to seek full repayment from Iceland for them and for its own expenditure on individual savers.

The US embassy in Reykjavik declined to comment on Mr Assange's invitation.

[AlicetheKurious]

Uh oh. A singularly damaging bit of real information (as opposed to speculative) for JA, and I'm the one that found it. Go figure.

Wait a minute! Why is his friend and admirer Birgitta Jonsdottir spilling the beans? Another jealous grudge perhaps?

Or...providing a cover story for what the hell he was doing there. In case somebody remembered seeing him, for example.

[AlicetheKurious]

In case somebody accuses me of whatever, I'll elaborate: since 9/11, most embassies enforce very stringent security, none more so than the US embassies, which were already pretty extreme. I've been invited to many embassy receptions (none by the US embassy though) and standard procedure in all cases is that if you're going to bring a guest, you have provide his or her name a specified period in advance. At the door, if you're not recognized by the ambassador or whoever's greeting, you have to show your invitation and a valid ID in the same name as the invitation. No way would the guest of a guest be allowed in by himself, at least in my experience. The story that Birgitta's telling, that she invited Assange to come along and then he went without her, doesn't sound possible.

Maybe I'm wrong and things are different in Iceland, although I doubt it.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

The story that Birgitta's telling, that she invited Assange to come along and then he went without her, doesn't sound possible.

It doesn't sound very likely to me either. Maybe he did a Jedi Mind Trick on the doorman or something - he seems the type. Maybe he just said "Fidelio."

What was he doing there, though? Why would he even want to be there, unless it was to gloat in a childish "I know something you don't know" kind of way? As a person, he doesn't seem to be above that sort of behaviour, it has to be said.

If it was something more sinister than that, it'll be a disappointment.

[barracuda]

Presumably, his name was on the guest list, and his admission was at the discretion of Sam Watson, who clearly wished to speak with him. In any case there's hardly enough information in the article to have an effect on one's opinion of Assange, unless some predisposition prevails. For example, I find the incident humorous to think that he essentially crashed the party on the basis of his celebrity or reputation. Rakish. But the headline of the article is in itself enough for me to judge the spirit in which this tidbit is hoped to be viewed by those presenting it.

[AlicetheKurious]

Shades of this.

I vote "cover story".

[AlicetheKurious]

Presumably, his name was on the guest list...

Why would you "presume" such a thing? She specifically says he wasn't invited and that she didn't think they "had any idea" who he was.