Home  FAQ  Search  Memberlist  Usergroups  KDR  Register  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Mon 05 Apr 2010, 8:18 pm

First topic message reminder :

Here's a horrific story... it's DoD video from an US attack helicopter, which is gunning down civilians in what we're told is Iraq. We're also told that two of the people that were gunned-down were Reuters journalists, and that others were children. I haven't been able to verify any of these claims, although I have not researched it thoroughly.

The purpose of this post is to explore the purpose of Wikileaks in a scenario such as this. Is Wikileaks operating as claimed, as a genuine media operation serving the public interest by providing information unobtainable any other way? Or, is Wikileaks being unwittingly duped by an establishment seeking to release footage designed to drive fear into viewers? Or, lastly, is Wikileads a controlled organization, established as a monopoly in order to control information (leaks) and serve as an outlet that is perceived as credible and uncontrolled?

Given that wikileaks has not yet been shutdown in what is a highly controlled society, and given that I believe the purpose of this video is fear propagation (as we don't know if any claims about children or journalists are factual, or if they are even the figures in this video), my view continues to be that Wikileaks is a controlled organization.

Here's the video, it's certainly disturbing.




http://collateralmurder.com/

Thoughts? How feasible is the hypothesis that Wikileaks is not only established to control leaked information, but to provide a creditable trust source of material designed to create fear or other relevant emotional reactions that assist in brain programming?

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com

AuthorMessage
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Mon 26 Jul 2010, 9:27 pm

incognito wrote:
There are not many journalists who, when you ask them if they are being followed by the CIA...
But the journalists ARE CIA!

I just saw somewhere else today that there was an article in the NYT about another wikileak, that supposedly exposed the fact that Pakistani intel was secretly co-operating with the Taliban. What the heck is all that about?

I can't keep up anymore.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Tue 27 Jul 2010, 4:22 am

I missed that one C1, but instead of tracking it down will spend my time looking at videos of cute kittehs on youtube.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Clairvoyant



Posts : 241
Join date : 2009-11-19

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Tue 27 Jul 2010, 3:41 pm

Here is a post from a different forum that I thought was both humorous and interesting, people are propagandized to see "conspiracy theorists" as some sort of unified hive mind. It's the official story or the conspiracy theorist story, only two sides, no room to think for yourself.

Quote :
I bet a lot of conspiracy theorists really hate Wikileaks, they probably
claim the site is a disinformation site because "OMG THERE ARE NO 9/11
WE-DID-IT DOCUMENTS, NO ALIENS DOCUMENTS, NO ILLUMINATING MEETINGS!
FAKE!".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Tue 27 Jul 2010, 4:45 pm

Gee, who saw this coming?


Barack Obama enlists Afghan war leaks in support of policy switch

Material cataloguing blunders justifies decision to deploy 30,000 more US troops, US president says

"Barack Obama today claimed the disclosures about the mishandling of the Afghanistan war contained in leaked US military documents justified his decision to embark on a new strategy..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/27/barack-obama-afghan-war-logs1/print
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Blue Genes

avatar

Posts : 8
Join date : 2010-05-26

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Tue 27 Jul 2010, 6:06 pm

incognito wrote:
Gee, who saw this coming?
Ha ha ha
Back to top Go down
View user profile
They Live

avatar

Posts : 210
Join date : 2009-10-23

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Wed 28 Jul 2010, 3:36 pm

Some interesting vectoring here (basically suppressing the size of the lie), but at least they are planting the seeds of doubt. I don't trust this web site, given the vectoring and the fact that they get their images from Getty Images.

Comes a Blond Stranger ...
http://www.thedailybell.com/printerVersion.asp?nid=1246

The two sat quietly in the senior cafeteria in the basement of a big dusty building in Washington DC. It was mid-afternoon, and they nearly were by themselves, drinking coffee. The junior man had invited the senior man. He was eager to impress him.

The junior man had had a thought.

"What if we got a guy," he said in a low tone, "And made him into a star."

"What kind of star?" asked the senior man, encouraged that the junior man was doing some deep thinking. Anyone who "thought" at the Agency in this manner had a leg-up.

"An Internet star," the junior man said. "A dramatic guy with a weird background."

"Actually we've got a guy like that," the senior man said. "We don't but the Aussies do."

"Oh, really?" asked the junior man. "Where'd they get him?"

"He was in trouble in his youth," explained the senior man. "A lot of trouble and eventually they turned him."

"What kind of trouble?"

"He was a big hacker. An ethical hacker, they said. But he was a weird young guy generally. Claimed he went to 30 schools when he was young and lived on the run from his father."

"Sounds interesting," the junior man said. "Is he available to us?"

"They don't know what to do with him. He's meant for big things, but no one knows what."

"But he's still a young guy?"

"Very dramatic. Blond hair. Almost albino. And a low-key personality. Never smiles."

"Damaged, personality, huh. But dramatic."

"The real thing," the senior man said. "Smart as a whip. Probably borderline autistic."

"Sounds perfect," the junior man said enthusiastically. "But it's got be done carefully. And the build-up has to work, too."

"Well," the senior man said, "the build up would have to take place over a period of years."

"Of course," the junior man agreed and sipped some of his coffee before it got cold. "I knew that."

"Of course you did," the senior man said bitingly.

"He's got to have an air of mystery about him," the junior man said.

"Sure," the senior man said. "Just like with Supriem Rockefeller."

"Who?" The junior man was baffled.

"Supriem Rockefeller," the senior man said a little sharply. "The guy doesn't exist but we made him up and now he's all over the Internet."

"Oh," the junior man said vaguely. "Yeah, Supriem. Good job."

"Good job," the senior man said derisively to show he knew the junior man didn't know.

"I mean it's the same sort of idea," the junior man said lamely.

"It worked pretty good," the senior man continued, letting him off the hook. "El Supriem showed up on a lot of alternative news sites. Pretty funny actually."

"That's what you gotta do," the junior man said a little more enthusiastically. "Baffle them, hit 'em on all sides until they have no idea what's true and what it isn't. Discredit them completely, these crazy bloggers. They all work out of their basements anyway."

"Well, Supremo's not real, but this idea of yours – it's interesting."

"You've got the guy," the junior man said. "Sounds like you do. He should have a dramatic name by the way."

"That can be arranged."

"Something that rhymes with, say ... strange," the junior man said. "Just speaking off the cuff, of course. And his background should be as dramatic as possible. You said he was on the run from his father, but maybe he could be on the run from a cult as well."

"Not a bad idea," the senior man agreed.

"He should be a mythic character," the junior man said expansively. He settled back in his chair, too excited to drink more coffee. "He should live on the run, out of suitcases and have homes and apartments in a number of different countries. He should be a self-made millionaire but anti-social. But he should also work well with people even though he shuns them."

"Interesting concept," the senior man commented.

"He should set up a vast global network of anonymous servers," the junior man said. "And work out of safe rooms. He should be a hunted man and NATO should be after him. He should be wanted by powerful countries – America of course, and countries in Europe too."

"I like it," the senior man said. "It sounds dramatic."

"He should seek shelter in a small out-of-the-way country like, say, Iceland. Someplace you'd never think of. And maybe he should have his visa revoked, just to make the 'wanted' thing more of a cliff-hanger."

"How about this," the senior man said. "Make a big deal of it and then hand it back quietly."

"He needs to be leaking government documents," the junior man elaborated. "That's the real hook. Thousands of documents given to him by ... anonymous whistleblowers."

"You're on a roll," the senior man suggested. "But not real documents – or not top secret ones."

"Announce that they are top secret," the junior man decided. "But then it turns out they're only secret. And they'll need to show the US doing some bad things, of course."

"But not too bad."

"Just bad enough to make it believable. Leathernecks abusing civilians, but nothing that people don't already suspect. Let's not break any new ground here. But set up the first data dump with something sexy. Say a video of a shooting, a massacre, a war crime or something. Something dramatic, but nothing new. Something people already know about."

"You mean to build credibility. That can be arranged."

"And then let 'em have the big one! But arrange the data dump so it works in our favor. Maybe gives Pakistan the business – reveal the funny stuff going on around the border and how Pakistan is protecting the Taliban. Really drill 'em."

"Give us a pretext to invade. Iran, too," the senior man said thoughtfully. "Should have something about Iranian cooperation with the Taliban just to cover all the bases."

"Sure," the junior man said. "Enough to justify arresting the guy if it comes to that."

"He'd have to be well compensated though," the senior man pointed out.

"Goes without saying," the junior man agreed. "Anyway, it gives policy-makers a lot of options. They can use the info as a pretext to heat the war up or cool it down. Might want to throw in the names of some Afghan informers just to make it seem real," he added casually.

"That could cost lives – "

"Afghan lives," the junior man said contemptuously. "Too many of 'em anyway. Hey, maybe throw in a sighting or two of Bin Laden. How about that?"

"That's stretching it a bit," the senior man said coolly. "He's been dead nearly five years now."

"What's the difference," the junior man said. "Throw enough on the wall and something is bound to stick. Justify all the crazy tapes we've been releasing, supposedly from Al Qaeda."

"Exactly how is all this information supposed to be released?" queried the senior man.

"Maybe through newspapers," the junior man said. "How about the New York Times. Give 'em some credibility if anything can. They can make a big fuss, treat it as something daring."

"What about that Pentagon Papers guy?

"Does he work for us?" the junior man inquired.

The senior man shrugged. "Let him say something nice. Maybe says the new guy is just like him – a real daredevil."

"I like it," the junior man said. "I think it's a winner."

The senior man nodded and finished his coffee. He sat back with a thoughtful expression on his face.

"Let's summarize," he said. "We got an albino misfit with a strange name running around from country to country and leaking confidential information onto hundreds of anonymous servers. We'll fund the operation, but he'll pretend to be aided by generous anonymous donors who believe in the cause. He'll stay on the run because he's a wanted man, moving from safe-house to safe-house and taking advantage of Internet technology. He'll be the final decider of what's leaked so he can maintain control, and we can provide some employment muscle if necessary so the operation looks big-time. He'll seem like a real new-wave cool cat."

"A cool cat, definitely. Once he's got credibility, he should also make some additional points," the junior man added suddenly.

"Oh, you mean something about how 9/11 isn't really scientific," the senior man said thoughtfully, "and that there are plenty of other conspiracies to examine without making 'truther' stuff up."

"Right," the junior man agreed. "Talk down the 9/11 truthers. And the Bilderberger crackpots, too. Say, this guy doesn't trust anything that's not numeric."

"OK ... Maybe he represents a new kind of journalism."

"Data dump journalism!" the junior man said, enthused. "Right from the original source. No need to interpret. Reporting is so yesterday."

"The guy is an icon," the senior man elaborated.

"A myth!"

"A legend," the senior man agreed. "Do you really think it will work?"

"Sure," the junior man said. "The bigger the lie the more credible it is."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Wed 28 Jul 2010, 8:54 pm

Hah! EXCELLENT piece. Thank you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Thu 29 Jul 2010, 12:59 am

They Live wrote:
Some interesting vectoring here (basically suppressing the size of the lie), but at least they are planting the seeds of doubt. I don't trust this web site, given the vectoring and the fact that they get their images from Getty Images.

I'm in complete agreement, I don't trust them either. They are very sophisticated, I have found, and only sell out in a very discreet and selective way.


Last edited by Explorer on Tue 10 Aug 2010, 5:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Thu 29 Jul 2010, 1:12 pm

Back to top Go down
View user profile
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Thu 29 Jul 2010, 1:15 pm

Jon Stewart Mocks Media For WikiLeaks Reaction (VIDEO)

Huffington Post | Katla McGlynn
First Posted: 07-28-10 09:11 AM | Updated: 07-28-10 03:53 PM

The release of over 90,000 secret military documents on the war in Afghanistan has woken the media up to how the war is really going, and last night Jon Stewart got to weigh in on the scandal himself. As any sane person would think, Stewart speculated that a security breach of this magnitude must have been carried about by highly efficient, almost ninja-like informants who used stealth tactics to obtain the information and leak it to the site WikiLeaks.org.

Oh, how wrong he was. No, these extremely sensitive documents revealing the Afghanistan war's many problems were leaked by none other than an Army intelligence analyst with the screen name "BradAss87." And his stealthy operation revolved around downloading the intelligence to an erased Lady Gaga CD, all the while lip syncing to the songs while it saved. This led Stewart to ask, "How does a soldier sit around lip syncing to Lady Gaga all day, and not run afoul of 'don't ask don't tell'? That has GOT to be a substitute for telling, no?"

While Stewart sat in disbelief over the new intelligence, including information on suicide bombings, civilian deaths, and even how Pakistan is helping insurgents in Afghanistan, what really set him off was the media's nonchalance. Stewart showed clip after clip of pundits essentially saying the information is "nothing new." Stewart fired back; "I'm not responding to the 'newness' of the reports - I'm responding to the 'fucked-upedness' of it!"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-27-2010/best-leak-ever
Back to top Go down
View user profile
They Live

avatar

Posts : 210
Join date : 2009-10-23

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Thu 29 Jul 2010, 5:37 pm

Is this leak about egregious acts in Afghanistan intended to keep the public desensitized to the ruthlessness of the occupation, and get us to accept the deterioration of our government institutions?

Why are we being bombarded with this messaging?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Sat 31 Jul 2010, 1:29 pm

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/29/gordon-duff-wiki-leaks-is-isreal-like-we-all-didnt-know/


LAME “LEAK” SITE NOTHING MORE THAN THIN COVER FOR “THE TEL AVIV TANGO”


By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
Now “Wiki-Leaks” is busy selling phony bin Laden stories, having the
long dead Osama humiliating the CIA by running around villages in
Afghanistan selling vacuum cleaners. What is our “leak” site really
about? This is a dead news cycle. The World Cup is over, lots of
people on holiday and no major stories. Only in a dead news period like
this, as Oliver Stone pointed out, could the Israeli controlled media
dump a pile of lame rumors mixed in with box loads of chickenfeed,
passing it off as the story of the century.


Even the cover story, the mysterious Assange fleeing the murderous
CIA, working to save the world is lame. WikiLeaks is lame. Please,
everyone, go to the site and read everything there. I have seen more
confidential information on a weather report. Assange is hardly a James
Bond figure. Woody Allen is masculine in comparison.

Journalists all get leaks, and frankly, we don’t print most of them.
Some we can’t trust. Some are just too dangerous. Some are simply
illegal. Some are blatantly self serving Israeli propaganda coated with
a veneer of anti-Americanism. This is “Wiki-leaks” material. What is
important is what they don’t print. The only things that come out about
Israel, the country most vulnerable to leaks, the country always up to
the most skulduggery, is an occasional harmless story like their major
leak on East Jerusalem settlements. It hit the New York Times first.


When you read Mr. Assange’s output, you are looking at one of the
Mossad games, nothing more. They send some stories to Fox News, some to
CNN, some to the Washington Post or London Times. They have their pick
as their friends and co-workers own those outlets and so many more.
The game today is using Wikileaks, given its 15 minutes of fame for
trashing the US in Iraq with the helicopter video, to spread imaginary
stories about Pakistan, the only nuclear power in the Middle East
capable of standing up to Israel and the enemy of India.

India is what it is all really about. Israel is playing India for a
fall, drawing them into their games they way they did with the United
States in Iraq and Afghanistan. India will wake up with their
government bought off, blackmailed, up to their neck in wars and
insurgencies at home and fighting Israel’s enemies abroad. India is the
next real target for rape, destruction, destabilization by Israel and
our “Wiki-leak” is part of that game.
Another chosen victim, of course, is the United States, hated enemy
of Israel, not for public consumption, however. Check the names of
those who looted the American economy. In the top dresser drawer of 80%
of those who took the US into bankruptcy, you will find an Israeli
passport.

Did anyone ask why nothing was reported in 90,000 pages regarding the
massive drug dealing in Afghanistan? With stories in the press around
the world reporting that President Karzai and his brother are the
biggest druglords in the world, why would this not be mentioned? Is it
because Karzai is a good friend of the Indo-Israeli alliance that runs
Wiki-leaks?

Classified Army documents are filled to the brim with reports that
the CIA and their private contractors are involved in drug operations
with Karzai but also other names are named including many prominent
Americans, some members of congress. I won’t leak their names but I
know they are in the documents. If Wiki got what they say they got,
then most of their documents would have reported corruption, drug
dealing, governments of a dozen countries would have been mentioned.

If real leaks were made public and we did something about it, first
by arresting the gangsters and spies filling congress, the White House
and every federal agency, we might balance our budget but who would be
left to do the Sunday morning talk shows? If you want the names of
those who would really be on leaked documents, check your TV listings.
It isn’t a coincidence. Those chosen to lie on television are also
being paid for other duties as well.

Israel would have been cited for laundering drug money for the
Taliban. It is in the documents. I didn’t release them. That is
illegal.

BG Asif Haroon Raja of Pakistan, former Attache to Egypt and
respected intelligence analyst had the following to say about the Wiki
barrage:

<blockquote>“Unsubstantiated and fabricated allegations against
Pakistan and its premier institutions are so absurd and decayed that it
gives nausea to the reader. Only ones who enjoy the stale jokes are its
manufacturers or the game players. ISI-Taliban closeness has been
drummed up in such a manner as if it is the biggest sin ever committed.
Each time it is presented with a new flavor to make it look more
breathtaking. This unholy practice has been going on systematically and
incessantly for the last six years to condition the minds of the world
audience and to convert falsehood into truth. Story of this nature is
routinely published in western media every fortnightly.

In the last few months write ups on this subject have suddenly
gained impetus. Previously, accusations were in the form of allegations
made by newspapers and think tanks. Now top US civil and military
officials have jumped into the arena with loins girded up and have
started using high handed tactics openly without caring for diplomatic
decorum. Propaganda assault together with verbal assaults by visiting
officials and drone attacks have become a norm. They have become
xenophobic and overbearing. This can be gauged from the mood of the
three US visitors who visited Islamabad recently.

Prickly Hillary Clinton can see ghost of Osama sauntering in
Pakistan each time she lands in Pakistan . Through her lens she sees ISI
in cahoots with Taliban. She again reminded our harried rulers that any
attack on US homeland with connection to Pakistan would have
devastating consequences upon Pak-US relations. She conceitedly dangled
few carrots to make them do more. Grim looking Holbrooke and tense
ridden Adm. Mike Mullen harbored similar ideas. The trio wanted Pak Army
to cut off its entire links with Taliban, consider Indians as friends
and to promptly launch an operation in North Waziristan to chase out
Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the two outfits most dreaded
by USA . LeT has been put on the hit list to please India .

Wikileaks is a follow up of London Report and some of the
objectives behind it are to keep Pakistan pressured and cornered,
authenticate Indian allegations about ISI’s involvement in various acts
of terror in Afghanistan, demonise LeT and defame ISI, exert pressure on
Obama Administration to affect a change in its policy of softness
towards Pakistan, reconciliation with Taliban and withdrawal of
coalition forces. India together with Northern Alliance and pro-war
American senior officials are possibly behind the Wikileaks scandal.
This report is less harmful for Pakistan and more injurious for USA
since source reports on Pakistan mostly provided by RAAM and RAW agents
were never taken seriously by the receivers. Receiving officers have
been noting their remarks on such reports as lacking in authenticity,
biased and devoid of credibility. Moreover, such manipulated leakages
would further widen rather than build trust gap between USA and Pakistan
.”
</blockquote>
When Joe Biden and General Petraeus both reported that Israel was
endangering American troops, the classified portion of this involved
Israeli operations in Afghanistan, which are extensive. Why would
General Petraeus have gone to congress about Israel if he didn’t have
documents? We couldn’t manage to leak those also? They are all over
Washington, anyone could pick them up. They just don’t. Ask Oliver
Stone why.

Hundreds of pages of reports of Israeli and Indian operatives in
Pakistan’s region called Baluchistan were tossed out also. Their
involvement in terrorism, not only against Iran but working directly
with the Taliban in Pakistan was there but not included. So much wasn’t
included.


Nothing involving drug flights being serviced by Israeli companies
was released. It was in the files. If we really want to leak things,
they are out there. It can get bloody.

Wikileaks leaves a trail of stench from Mr. Assange right to Tel
Aviv. If anyone couldn’t see it, the corporate press or the Israeli
press or the Zionist press or whatever the current buzz word is for the
useless press, they put you on the path. They are the ones putting a
spotlight on the disinformation and failing miserably to note how
obviously the leaks have been edited to serve Israeli games.

Wikileaks is Israel. Assange works for them, I hope not
unwittingly. I hate it when people are duped. I would rather he were
paid or being blackmailed. I always want the useless to be rewarded in
this life because, just in case their is another one after this, they
know what they can expect there.

It won’t be pleasant.

I didn’t want to write this, add to the problem. Even negative
publicity is publicity. Every time I am attacked, my readership goes up
dramatically. It almost encourages one to be abrasive and
unnecessarily controversial, like with Fox News.

Let’s cut this short. Wikileaks is simply another ploy by the ultra
powerful Israel lobby, a cheap game meant to humiliate the United
States, destroy Paksitan and build a reputation for a puppet. I suspect
it will fail. I hope this effort is useful in that endeavor.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Sun 08 Aug 2010, 4:09 pm

I've been seeing a huge awareness blossoming on the Interwebz that wikileaks is an OP. I still doubt the Internet 'kill switch' meme but I like this video's message to not trust any of the media. Multi layered in it's obfuscation, parts are still excellent. Though as someone said this morning on crackbook, half truths are still whole lies.



Back to top Go down
View user profile
They Live

avatar

Posts : 210
Join date : 2009-10-23

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Sun 08 Aug 2010, 8:34 pm

Good people are questioning Wikileaks. Drako Malfoy ... ha ha ha.

It looks like they're really pushing everyone into the Internet now.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Thu 19 Aug 2010, 12:37 am

Another decent journalist joins the other team...

http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2010/08/18/why-wikileaks-must-be-protected/

Why WikiLeaks Must Be Protected by John Pilger

On 26 July, WikiLeaks released thousands of secret US military files
on the war in Afghanistan. Cover-ups, a secret assassination unit and
the killing of civilians are documented. In file after file, the
brutalities echo the colonial past. From Malaya and Vietnam to Bloody
Sunday and Basra, little has changed. The difference is that today there
is an extraordinary way of knowing how faraway societies are routinely
ravaged in our name. WikiLeaks has acquired records of six years of
civilian killing for both Afghanistan and Iraq, of which those published
in the Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times are a fraction.

There is understandably hysteria on high, with demands that the
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is "hunted down" and "rendered." In
Washington, I interviewed a senior Defense Department official and
asked, "Can you give a guarantee that the editors of WikiLeaks and the
editor in chief, who is not American, will not be subjected to the kind
of manhunt that we read about in the media?" He replied, "It’s not my
position to give guarantees on anything." He referred me to the "ongoing
criminal investigation" of a US soldier, Bradley Manning,
an alleged whistleblower. In a nation that claims its constitution
protects truth-tellers, the Obama administration is pursuing and
prosecuting more whistleblowers than any of its modern predecessors. A
Pentagon document states bluntly that US intelligence intends to
"fatally marginalize" WikiLeaks. The preferred tactic is smear, with
corporate journalists ever ready to play their part.


On 31 July, the American celebrity reporter Christiane Amanpour
interviewed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the ABC network. She
invited Gates to describe to her viewers his "anger" at WikiLeaks. She
echoed the Pentagon line that "this leak has blood on its hands,"
thereby cueing Gates to find WikiLeaks "guilty" of "moral culpability."
Such hypocrisy coming from a regime drenched in the blood of the people
of Afghanistan and Iraq – as its own files make clear – is apparently
not for journalistic enquiry. This is hardly surprising now that a new
and fearless form of public accountability, which WikiLeaks represents,
threatens not only the war-makers but their apologists.

Their current propaganda is that WikiLeaks is "irresponsible."
Earlier this year, before it released the cockpit video of an American
Apache gunship killing 19 civilians in Iraq, including journalists and
children, WikiLeaks sent people to Baghdad to find the families of the
victims in order to prepare them. Prior to the release of last month’s
Afghan War Logs, WikiLeaks wrote to the White House asking that it
identify names that might draw reprisals. There was no reply. More than
15,000 files were withheld and these, says Assange, will not be released
until they have been scrutinized "line by line" so that names of those
at risk can be deleted.

The pressure on Assange himself seems unrelenting. In his homeland,
Australia, the shadow foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has said that if
her right-wing coalition wins the general election on 21 August,
"appropriate action" will be taken "if an Australian citizen has
deliberately undertaken an activity that could put at risk the lives of
Australian forces in Afghanistan or undermine our operations in any
way." The Australian role in Afghanistan, effectively mercenary in the
service of Washington, has produced two striking results: the massacre
of five children in a village in Oruzgan province and the overwhelming
disapproval of the majority of Australians.

Last May, following the release of the Apache footage, Assange had
his Australian passport temporarily confiscated when he returned home.
The Labor government in Canberra denies it has received requests from
Washington to detain him and spy on the WikiLeaks network. The Cameron
government also denies this. They would, wouldn’t they? Assange, who
came to London last month to work on exposing the war logs, has had to
leave Britain hastily for, as he puts it, "safer climes."

On 16 August, the Guardian, citing Daniel Ellsberg,
described the great Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu as "the
pre-eminent hero of the nuclear age." Vanunu, who alerted the world to
Israel’s secret nuclear weapons, was kidnapped by the Israelis and
incarcerated for 18 years after he was left unprotected by the London Sunday Times,
which had published the documents he supplied. In 1983, another heroic
whistleblower, Sarah Tisdall, a Foreign Office clerical officer, sent
documents to the Guardian that disclosed how the Thatcher government planned to spin the arrival of American cruise missiles in Britain. The Guardian complied with a court order to hand over the documents, and Tisdall went to prison.

In one sense, the WikiLeaks revelations shame the dominant section of
journalism devoted merely to taking down what cynical and malign power
tells it. This is state stenography, not journalism. Look on the
WikiLeaks site and read a Ministry of Defense document that describes
the "threat" of real journalism. And so it should be a threat. Having
published skillfully the WikiLeaks expose of a fraudulent war, the Guardian should
now give its most powerful and unreserved editorial support to the
protection of Julian Assange and his colleagues, whose truth-telling is
as important as any in my lifetime.

I like Julian Assange’s dust-dry wit. When I asked him if it was more
difficult to publish secret information in Britain, he replied, "When
we look at Official Secrets Act labeled documents we see that they state
it is offence to retain the information and an offence to destroy the
information. So the only possible outcome we have is to publish the
information."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
incognito

avatar

Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Thu 19 Aug 2010, 3:51 pm

I just thought of something. This piece was directly on the heels of Pilger outing Barry as a CIA operative. Barry - bad, Assange - good. Interesting.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Sun 22 Aug 2010, 2:35 pm

Operatives playing games with each other. They almost never target a regular person, because regular people are not supposed to get media attention. But arguing amongst themselves is authorized and encouraged, keeps the vectors hostile toward one another.

Great theater, I guess.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
Extant

avatar

Posts : 107
Join date : 2009-11-24

PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   Sun 14 Nov 2010, 8:01 am

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor   

Back to top Go down
 
Wikileaks as Backchannel Distributor
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» SOLDIER ACCUSED OF GIVING INFORMATION TO WIKILEAKS FACING MORE CHARGES
» Trey Parker
» WikiLeaks: Julian Assange could start publishing leaked details of Swiss bank tax accounts in two weeks
» McCann cables spark more WikiLeaks worries

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
WWWS :: Main Forums :: Current Information Operations (IO)-
Jump to: