US Intell planned to destroy Wikileaks

[Peter Presland]

I'm pretty much with Jan on this.

No question but that the trio mentioned - plus others - will do their level best to co-opt, suborn, discredit etc etc ANY operation that risks exposing the stuff they need to keep hidden to a large audience; and it's the 'large audience' bit where Wikileaks scores over the likes of DPF etc and makes them especially threatening.

I also have misgivings about Julian Assanges apparent penchant for publicity seeking - although it could also be seen as a form of self-protection. Also, John Young's observations on Wikileaks are apposite: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...=Wikileaks . His observation that "There are fake whistle-blowers - trying to make you distrust whistle-blowers." quoted in post #4 here resonates too.

Stiil it never does any harm to cast a thoroughly sceptical eye on these things and I can see no reason why Wikileaks should be an exception.

[Helen Reyes]

Former (?) NSA official Wayne Madsen exposed the theory to public scrutiny yesterday on the Alex Jones Show, http://rss.infowars.com/20100401_Thu_Alex.mp3

I think it's very healthy to question Wikileaks' motives and sources of funding and information. I've been watching their scoops for years. It's entirely possible they are throughly infiltrated or even a front organization, but there's reason to question that thesis as well.

First, China and Thailand have gripes with Wikileaks over information published. Calling them CIA is a convenient way of skirting issues raised by documents released, at least in the domestic arena. If Wikileaks were genuine, then they would be making enemies among all governments, which seems to be the case. GErmany tried to shut them down, raided servers or something, Australia and Denmark blocked them for publishing lists of banned/filtered websites, etc. I automatically discount the Thai and Chinese claims.

Second, if Wikileaks is a US intelligence operation (or Mossad), there is something very elaborate going on here, when you consider the the Pentagon's document on how to destroy the Wikileaks intel operation, the intrigues in Iceland and the fact that Wikileaks has been claiming to be broke for the last 2 or so months, and is running a skeleton website at this point.

Why would the US attacks its own front, and why would the front appear to be financially broke?

It might be worth noting that Iceland, besides the above-posted Dutch private military operation, also came under fire that same week for allegedly selling whale meat to Latvia and Denmark. The amount in question was 250 kg, but soon blossomed to 250 tonnes in subsequent retellings in some international media. This coincided with the CoP15 CITES conference in Doha, Qatar and the accusation was brought by the IWAF. If the plan is to isolate Iceland internationally, the wikileaks intrigue could be part of that plan, assuming it's an intelligence operation.

Madsen on Jones' show repeated that John of Cryptome called wikileaks a CIA front after leaving the organization. Wikileaks on its skeleton website published very few documents in the last few months, most of them concerning Iceland and ICESAVE, but also the document at the center of the Cryptome and Microsoft dispute, for which Cryptome briefly went offline. Interesting use of supposedly limited resources, if there really is such anomosity between cryptome and wikileaks, about which I know nothing more than what has been claimed by others.

The WMR blog paints a grand conspiracy by Soros, but some of the details don't pan. If Soros wanted an entry to Greenland, consolidating a base in Iceland is ineffective. He'd want to cultivate Danish Queen Margarethe, or a position in Denmark, or simply move in to Greenland, because there are no barriers to entry there. Another point: the Greenland icecap isn't melting, and Soros knows that. Greenland has mineral wealth, but quick profits would be for uranium and gold, not rare-earths, at least that's how I perceive it. Greenland has gold and uranium, and there is an ALCOA project going forward there for aluminium, as well as petroleum multinationals doing exploratory drilling around Disko Bay. The Greenland homerule government, nanoq.gl, is in charge of the mineral franchises and don't seem particularly chosey as to whom they work with. This part of the blog stirkes me as nonsense.

Soros could use Wikileaks to leak sensitive and damaging information about Baer or UBS or whichever bank, but that works both ways, others could do the same. Assange's hacking credentials haven't been established by the blog, but the connexion with the National Endowment for Democracy is intriguing, even if it comes through a person who may be tangential.

To cut it short: What intelligence interest is Wikileaks serving by releasing McChrystal's private snuff film killing journalists and civilians in Afghanistan, and what intelligence interest is Wikileaks serving by pretending to be surveilled in Iceland and Norway, and what intelligence interest is served by the US attacking its own intelligence asset, or at least publishing documents about attacking same asset? If the answer is some nebulous Soros conspiracy involving replacing Barry Soetoro in the next presidential election while waiting for the Greenlandic icecap to melt, I call bullshit, with the caveat that I don't what John of Cryptome has to say about it, and would be interested to hear.

Again, the Pentagon document calls for discrediting wikileaks in the public eye. Is Madsen doing that, is he playing the part of useful idiot, or is he right?

PS I'm not sure where this fits in, but wikileaks presented partisan editorial comments in favour of Soetoro during the democratic nominating process when it released documents they felt were meant to defame him and his candidacy, and it is clear Soetoro has CIA connexions.

[Peter Presland]

Helen

I've had a number of brief contacts with John Young over the past 4-5 years. Mainly helping Craig Murray guarantee his stuff got published whatever the UK authorities did. I recall one exchange with wikileaks too where an exchange of emails was needed for them to put Murray's uncensored version of his book up. I didn't mean to imply that there is animosity between John and Wikileaks. Personally I very much doubt there is. He doesn't do 'animosity' he simply tells it as he sees it. He is totally unconcerned about competition and advocates as many competing (or cooperating whistle-blower type operations as possible. He's just a crotchety old sceptic about anything and everything that's all - and I mean that affectionately. He certainly posed the question himself - but in the same fashion as he would pose it about the motives of anyone appearing to seek publicity and funds.

Wikileaks can certainly be 'turned' or at the very least become a patsy or unwitting conduit for disinfo - I guess we all can.

On balance I think their motivation is probably sound and as claimed - but what the hell do I know?

I can also understand the claims reported as coming from China and Burma etc because the information they've published about them is vast.

[Helen Reyes]

Peter, I was referring to Wayne Madsen, not you

Now this is interesting, http://www.twitter.com/wikileaks has a link to a more reasoned WMR Madsen thesis about wikileaks being a CIA/Soros front. Meanwhile, back at the cryptome ranch, John provided links to a recent CUNY interview regarding Wikileaks:

http://vimeo.com/10615688

He says nothing to support Madsen's thesis and sounds supportive of Wikileaks, but does say Wikileaks received disinformation they were being spied upon (in Iceland?).

Meanwhile in Iceland, the Foreign Minister has sought explanation from acting US ambassador to Iceland over the leaking of confidential US dossiers on Icelandic officials, ECA is offering helicopter overflights of the erupting volcano presumably for free, and a law just passed dissolving Iceland's Defense Agency (Ministry) as of Jan 1, 2011, according to http://www.grapevine.is

I would sure like Cryptome John's further commentary on the Madsen thesis, if you happen to talk to him

[Jan Klimkowski]

Meanwhile, back at the cryptome ranch, John provided links to a recent CUNY interview regarding Wikileaks:

http://vimeo.com/10615688

He says nothing to support Madsen's thesis and sounds supportive of Wikileaks, but does say Wikileaks received disinformation they were being spied upon (in Iceland?).

(snip)

I would sure like Cryptome John's further commentary on the Madsen thesis, if you happen to talk to him

Having watched that "vimeo" interview, if it's recent, then the claim in the anonymous blog that John Young has denounced wikileaks as a CIA front is, at best, out of date and uncontextualized.

It's now three days until the unveiling of the Petraeus snuff movie. Of course it's entirely possible that certain factions may want to discredit Petraeus, hence the original leaking of the material. But atrocity footage is atrocity footage however They try to spin it.

[Helen Reyes]

The vimeo is from after Assange's statement he was being harrassed in Iceland and followed to Norway. John Young posted the vimeo link, a link to the full CUNY .mov file of the entire show and a strange youtube of him roaming the studio with a phone camera before the show, on the front page of cryptome.org, halfway down, where he posts letters from readers and whatnot.

I fully agree with what Young says about truly black intel, and that "leaks" is somewhat of a misnomer. This is the best part of the interview.

Russia Today did a fairly long piece on wikileaks and the Iceland/Norway incident, and it struck me as fairly sympathetic. I wouldn't expect that if Russia had intelligence wikileaks was a CIA front.

I think Madsen got sucked into trying to play cryptome against wikileaks through one of his contacts inside the intelligence community. Obviously wikileaks and cryptome are doing different things, in different ways. Both are "user generated" but wikileaks decides what to publish in a much different way, using different criteria. Cryptome doesn't make any pretense that it isn't selecting what to publish, while wikileaks sort of pretends to be a wikipedia thing, where you enter the sekrit dox on the input page and away it goes to meet the world at large.

If Madsen got sucked into this, I'd bet the Pentagon doc about destroying wikileaks is real. Boom Boom Barry has got to be very sensitive about losing Afghanistan right now, so the Petraeus video and its unveiling should be interesting.

[Paul Rigby]

Russia Today did a fairly long piece on wikileaks and the Iceland/Norway incident, and it struck me as fairly sympathetic. I wouldn't expect that if Russia had intelligence wikileaks was a CIA front.

You've reminded me of a question that's long required a better answer than I currently have: Who or what is Russia Today? Is it a genuine English-language product of Moscow, or a hybrid - Moscow with selective input from Washington? My strong suspicion is the latter, but I'd struggle to prove it.

I think Madsen got sucked into trying to play cryptome against wikileaks through one of his contacts inside the intelligence community...If Madsen got sucked into this, I'd bet the Pentagon doc about destroying wikileaks is real.

Difficult to imagine a sentient adult with his experience not realising he was being used in this way?

Boom Boom Barry has got to be very sensitive about losing Afghanistan right now, so the Petraeus video and its unveiling should be interesting.

To topple the current Afghan leadership or not, that is their question...

[Jan Klimkowski]

Here's the wikileaks special release today:

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

[Ed Jewett]

Classified U.S. Military Video Depicts Murder of Iraqi Civilians and Two Reuters Journalists

April 5th, 2010 Via: collateralmurder.com:
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad — including two Reuters news staff.
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.
After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own “Rules of Engagement”.
Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

Short / Annotated: 18 minutes embedded


Uncut: 39 minutes embedded

http://cryptogon.com/?p=14640

[If there is a DPF member with a YouTube account, perhaps they can re-post those links, as the videos are flagged for 18 and over due to inappropriate content.]

[Jan Klimkowski]

Here's the wikileaks special release today:

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

As of 21:36 GMT, the video and the site are down.