Deep Politics Forum

Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:Dr Richard Freer is
Richard Freer,"Deputy Director, Private Secretary to the Prime Minister",SCS1,https://email.number10.gov.uk/,020 7930 4433,Tom Fletcher,PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE,PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
(from http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/transparency/co-scs-list-2010-06-10-core.csv )

Judith Gough is now Ambassador to Georgia.
(from http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=PressR&id=22372191 )

Talking to the US seems to be good for the carreer. :marchmellow:

Good find. Yup, Ass-licking to the 'Godfather' will always get one a promotion. So will being a good poodle and fetching the slippers, paper and Tridents.

We have now seen 1% of the Wikileak cables, even if they have been sanitized [yet to be proven] of some things, I think the world diplomatic community will have collective heart attacks and ulcers come the other 99% - and don't forget the very beginning of the year comes the Bank info!!!! Fasten Seat Belts!!!!!:driver:

With a CV like Ms Gough's I'd bet she was working for the US not just talking to them.
Ernst and Young - Emerging markets
- Consultancy
- Senior Financial Services
Foreign Office - Gibraltar desk
- Head, Albania, FYR Macedonia and Balkans Strategic
Policy Team
- Seoul, Political Counsellor
- FCO, Deputy Director, Shared (with whom) Services
Programme
And now Ambassador to Georgia the super subservient door mat to the US.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but former British Army Captain Fred Holroyd - a member of Army Intelligence operating in the shadow wars of Northern Ireland, told me years ago that the CIA openly recruited UK army officers to work for it.

This was known far and wide.

Working for a foreign power to inform on its own nation is, er... treachery. Recruiting foreign nationals to work for it is, er... espionage.

Ssshhh. Don't tell anyone, okay.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed

US embassy cables reveal top executive's claims that company 'knows everything' about key decisions in government ministries

Comments (211)
David Smith in Lagos
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 December 2010 21.34 GMT
Article history

Despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people in Nigeria live below the poverty line. Photograph: George Osodi/AP

The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles

Looks like this Wikileak is really hurting Shell:

Quote:It sounds as if its reporter got a right earful from Shell's spokesman:

"You are seeking our views on a leaked cable to the Guardian newspaper allegedly containing information about the interpretation by a third party individual of a private conversation involving a Shell representative who has since left Nigeria.

We cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements it allegedly contains.

The Guardian's assertion that Shell has somehow infiltrated the government of Nigeria is absolutely untrue, false and misleading."

So, Shell's argument seems to be that their representative no longer works in Nigeria and that, consequently, the story is no loner valid?

Defendant: "M'lud, I did kill them back then, but then I moved on to kill someone else, somewhere else, so I can't be guilty can I?"

M'lud: "Fair enough. You are free to go".

The below article, struck me as being highly significant and damaging to Wikileaks and Assange, if accurate. The question, of course, is is it accurate? And the answer has to be not entirely. There is a "spin" in it.

The first thing to question, imo, is whether we can assume that the publication "Syrian Truth" can be considered a reliable source. I'm not convinced about this. You can read an English translation of the 9th December 2010 arabic original HERE and decide for yourself. I would require something more solid than one person who left Wikileaks in October 2009 making allegations that seemingly cannot be corroborated.

Of more concern is the paragraph in the below article as follows:

[quote]Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7] [/quote]

This paragraph is accurate with the distinction that Assange did not say that Netayahu was a "hero of transparency". What he said was that Netanyahu was:

[quote]A: Well, I was quoting Netanyahu, who [is] certainly not a naive man. The, of course ...[/quote]

No Netanyahu hero worship mentioned here.

My other concern is the context in which the para is used to strengthen the case that Assange did a deal with Israel to delete/withhold cables from those to be released.

Below is the original text of Netanyahu's comments in Haaretz that gave rise to this particular matter:

[quote]Netanyahu added that Israel had worked in advance to limit any damage from leaks.

"Every Israeli leader has known for years that that dispatches are likely to leak out, so we adapted ourselves to the reality of leaks," he said. "That has a bearing on who I invite to meetings. No classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks."[/quote]

This doesn't say that Assange had a deal with Israel not to publish their cables. It suggests that there were no diplomatic cables (i.e., "dispatches") to be leaked, because Israel had the foresight to see the dangers and took steps to communicate in other ways.

When fully reviewed with a critical eye, this Indybay article amounts to a mish-mash that has as its foundation the statements made by a former Wikileaks who's name only appears in a Google search twice, both in English translations of the "Syrian Truth" article.

All in all it is an unsatisfactory article that has the distinct aroma of "smear" wafting off it. But if anyone else can find out anything about this character "Daniel Berg Domokht" and verify his Wikileaks background and get other Wikileaks insiders to respond to his allegations, and confirm his relationship with them, then I'm prepared to think again.

[quote]

[quote=Ed Jewett]Palestine | International | U.S. | Indymedia

WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks
by LikiWeaks
Tuesday Dec 7th, 2010 6:39 PM

A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks “heart and soul”, as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.

According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.

The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange's “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”

In a recent interview with the German daily Die Tageszeitung, former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg said he and other WikiLeaks dissidents are planning to launch their own whistleblowers' platform to fulfil WikiLeaks's original aim of “limitless file sharing.” [3]

Mr Domscheit-Berg, who is about to publish a book about his days 'Inside WikiLeaks', accuses Assange of acting as a “king” against the will of others in the organisation by “making deals” with media organisations that are meant to create an explosive effect, which others in WikiLeaks either know little or nothing about. [4]

Furthermore, Assange's eagerness for headline-grabbing scoops meant that WikiLeaks had not been able to 'restructure' itself to cope with this surge of interest, insiders add. This has meant that smaller leaks, which might be of interest to people at a local level, are now being overlooked for the sake of big stories. [5]

According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.

Indeed, the published documents seem to have a 'gap' stretching over the period of July - September 2006, during which the 33-day Lebanon war took place. Is it possible that US diplomats and officials did not have any comments or information to exchange about this crucial event but spent their time 'gossiping' about every other 'trivial' Middle-Eastern matter?

Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]

According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering “a big amount of money”, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a 'war council' meeting between American, Israeli and Lebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies. The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwards and do not contain “anything of value,” the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.

Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”


Notes:

[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09...ks-revolt/

[2] http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/

[3] http://www.taz.de/1/netz/netzpolitik/art...m-popstar/

[4] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...12,00.html

[5] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...19,00.html

[6] http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/new...l-1.327773

[7] http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...-2,00.html

[8] http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/986/36/


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12...665978.php[/QUOTE]

David Guyatt Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed

US embassy cables reveal top executive's claims that company 'knows everything' about key decisions in government ministries

Comments (211)
David Smith in Lagos
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 December 2010 21.34 GMT
Article history

Despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people in Nigeria live below the poverty line. Photograph: George Osodi/AP

The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles

Looks like this Wikileak is really hurting Shell:

Quote:It sounds as if its reporter got a right earful from Shell's spokesman:

"You are seeking our views on a leaked cable to the Guardian newspaper allegedly containing information about the interpretation by a third party individual of a private conversation involving a Shell representative who has since left Nigeria.

We cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements it allegedly contains.

The Guardian's assertion that Shell has somehow infiltrated the government of Nigeria is absolutely untrue, false and misleading."

So, Shell's argument seems to be that their representative no longer works in Nigeria and that, consequently, the story is no loner valid?

Defendant: "M'lud, I did kill them back then, but then I moved on to kill someone else, somewhere else, so I can't be guilty can I?"

M'lud: "Fair enough. You are free to go".

I agree with your analysis David, and while still friends and colleagues, I find certain members here overly-anxious to look for and post any 'dirt' on Assange and Wikileaks they can, beyond what I can see is reasonable, called for, and backed up by verifiable facts.

This issue seems to have the potential to cause a schism in the DPF. I hope not. Let us all agree to disagree on some of this and await proofs. That Wikileaks has irritated to the extreme certain large Corporations and Governments [not to mention their diplomatic [sic] entities as well as their intelligence entities and military entities says to me they are NOT to be taken lightly nor denigrated at the drop of a hat. Let it all play out. It is moving at lightning speed....and IMO has the possibility to change how the internet and journalism hereon in functions -or if either even exist as we knew them.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:I agree with your analysis David, and while still friends and colleagues, I find certain members here overly-anxious to look for and post any 'dirt' on Assange and Wikileaks they can, beyond what I can see is reasonable, called for and back up by facts. This issue seems to have the potential to divide the DPF. I hope not.

I don't think honest debate will ever divide the forum Pete. And I am by no means entirely confident that Assange is who we hope he is. But I think he may be and am prepared to give him the doubt unless or until evidence to the contrary becomes available.

But at the end of the day we don't yet know for sure whether there is a greater game going on behind Wikileaks to stifle all future leaks, whistleblowers etc., from having an internet voice - and whether this simply may have been an opportune reaction to the current Cablegate leaks, or whether this possibility was "gamed" beforehand and then allowed to take place in order to snap the trap shut on us all.

I would like to believe that Assange and Wikileaks are what they make out to be - but all my experience to date says to tread carefully and not allow hope to cloud my ingrained cynicism of deep political possibilities. Many innocent people in the past have been made involuntary dupes by more sinister forces.

But on balance, as it stands, the sheer volume of vitriolic angst again Assange does suggest he is what he claims to be.

But the fact is that we just don't know for sure. Not yet.

And it is, therefore, entirely valid for other members to raise concerns and explore other possibilities and I welcome that interaction.

It is, after all, the underlying rationale and purpose of this forum.

David Guyatt Wrote:I don't think honest debate will ever divide the forum Pete. And I am by no means entirely confident that Assange is who we hope he is. But I think he may be and am prepared to give him the doubt unless or until evidence to the contrary becomes available.

But at the end of the day we don't yet know for sure whether there is a greater game going on behind Wikileaks to stifle all future leaks, whistleblowers etc., from having an internet voice - and whether this simply may have been an opportune reaction to the current Cablegate leaks, or whether this possibility was "gamed" beforehand and then allowed to take place in order to snap the trap shut on us all.

I would like to believe that Assange and Wikileaks are what they make out to be - but all my experience to date says to tread carefully and not allow hope to cloud my ingrained cynicism of deep political possibilities. Many innocent people in the past have been made involuntary dupes by more sinister forces.

But on balance, as it stands, the sheer volume of vitriolic angst again Assange does suggest he is what he claims to be.

But the fact is that we just don't know for sure. Not yet.

And it is, therefore, entirely valid for other members to raise concerns and explore other possibilities and I welcome that interaction.

It is, after all, the underlying rationale and purpose of this forum.

Thanks for that David. That's pretty much how I see things too. I am 100% behind the stated purpose and aims of Wikileaks. But I'm also 100% certain that the spooks will use it whenever and however they can to further those hidden (in plane sight) agendas.

With Assange in the straights he appears to be right now, I hesitate to cast another aspersion but I haven't seen it discussed here yet and it rubbed me up the wrong way big-time. It was his reference to the Murdoch clan in his Aussie article - almost as though he aspired to become something similar. That together with the 911 and other issues make him either incredibly naive for the driving force behind such a initiative - or something else.

Like you I really am bemused by it all. I desperately want Wikileaks to succeed but that makes me very wary of allowing desire to cloud my judgment. OTOH, neither do I intend to become a part of the tunnel-vision 'bash Assange' brigade. Jeff Gates, Gordon Duff and few others seem to have thrown their lot into that camp - a bit prematurely IMHO even though the insights they provide need considering.

David Guyatt Wrote:I don't think honest debate will ever divide the forum Pete. And I am by no means entirely confident that Assange is who we hope he is. But I think he may be and am prepared to give him the doubt unless or until evidence to the contrary becomes available.

But at the end of the day we don't yet know for sure whether there is a greater game going on behind Wikileaks to stifle all future leaks, whistleblowers etc., from having an internet voice - and whether this simply may have been an opportune reaction to the current Cablegate leaks, or whether this possibility was "gamed" beforehand and then allowed to take place in order to snap the trap shut on us all.

I would like to believe that Assange and Wikileaks are what they make out to be - but all my experience to date says to tread carefully and not allow hope to cloud my ingrained cynicism of deep political possibilities. Many innocent people in the past have been made involuntary dupes by more sinister forces.

But on balance, as it stands, the sheer volume of vitriolic angst again Assange does suggest he is what he claims to be.

But the fact is that we just don't know for sure. Not yet.

And it is, therefore, entirely valid for other members to raise concerns and explore other possibilities and I welcome that interaction.

It is, after all, the underlying rationale and purpose of this forum.

I agree.

Peter L - I understand your concerns, but the disinformation entities have been routinely purged whenever DPF has detected their infiltration into this zone. My antennae are not currently twitching. :knuddel:

So, I consider it constructive that members air their own judgements and post articles which provide different perspectives on, and analyses of, Assange and wikileaks.

David's insightful deconstruction of the IndyBay article is an example of DPF at its best.

So, in the spirit of different perspectives and dialectic, my own view is that the focus on Assange is a sign that the real arguments are being lost and the important issues are being forgotten.

In Their scripts:

i) Assange is cast as the Lone Nut, that the Free World must hunt down Dead or Alive, to protect our children and our economies;

ii) Assange is cast as a sex fiend, preying on vulnerable women;

iii) Assange is cast as a bought and paid for asset of (insert Enemy or Terror Group as appropriate);

iv) Assange is cast as a traitor to wikileaks, in cahoots with Mossad or the CIA or (again insert as appropriate).

All these scripts are available to Them, and are being utilized to divide us.

In my judgement, by focusing on Assange, we are playing Their game. :bandit: