US Intell planned to destroy Wikileaks

[Ed Jewett]

cryptome.org said:

... There is no single best means to gather and distribute information to the public -- nor to tell the truth about it. Variation and diversity and multiplicity is essential to avoid the deadly chokehold of dominant authorities, their complicit authoritatives and the grammar, rhetoric, graphics and technology they use for heirarchical control. To mimic the information strangulation of dominaters is to lie, deceive, misrepresent, bloviate, exaggerate, op- and pop-advert-editorialize, to manage the flow of information for a particular agenda always wedded to a grab for and protection of greater power and the lucrative revenue and fancy accoutrements it provides."

I can think of a rotunda or two in which an engraved plaque should contain the expression above. Indeed, it could almost serve as a masthead for some new publication. Or maybe someone could hack into the transmission of some TV outlets and install it as a "crawler" under the anchor desk....

[Peter Presland]

cryptome.org said:

A3 writes of the Wikileaks gunship video:

Having looked at all the evidence I can find on this incident it seems clear that the men killed in the video were armed insurgents with the Mahdi Army ....... etc etc

Anyways, keep keeping on, "loony John Young, of Cryptome.org."

Hmmm ' I wonder what A3 expected by way of response?

Cryptome: Wikileaks should continue to do what it believes best, as should others, ignore critics who envy its ingenuity and fear its reverse criticism of lazy-minded, spoiled critics -- and comics. There is no single best means to gather and distribute information to the public -- nor to tell the truth about it. Variation and diversity and multiplicity is essential to avoid the deadly chokehold of dominant authorities, their complicit authoritatives and the grammar, rhetoric, graphics and technology they use for heirarchical control. To mimic the information strangulation of dominaters is to lie, deceive, misrepresent, bloviate, exaggerate, op- and pop-advert-editorialize, to manage the flow of information for a particular agenda always wedded to a grab for and protection of greater power and the lucrative revenue and fancy accoutrements it provides. .....

Excuse the bowel moving. Another lying sack of shit (LSOS).

Vintage John Young and a solid illustration of why I rate the guy as I do. If you have an agenda and try to use him to further it, you'd better be wearing a flack jacket.

[Ed Jewett]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 15th, 2010

Contact:
Laura Taylor: 202-510-3711
info@civsol.org
[B]VETERANS OF "WIKILEAKS" INCIDENT ANNOUNCE[/B]

[B]"LETTER OF RECONCILIATION" TO IRAQIS INJURED IN ATTACK

[/B]

Two former soldiers from the Army unit responsible for the Wikileaks "Collateral Murder" incident have written an open-letter of "Reconciliation and Responsibility" to those injured in the July 2007 attack, in which U.S. forces wounded two children and killed over a dozen people, including the father of those children and two Reuters employees.
Ethan Mccord and Josh Stieber deployed to Baghdad with Bravo Company 2-16 in 2007. Ethan was on the ground at the scene of the shooting, and is seen on the video rushing one of the injured children to a U.S. Vehicle; "When I saw those kids, all I could picture was my kids back home". Ethan applied for mental health support following this incident and was denied by his commanding officer.

Josh Stieber was not at the scene of the shooting but says similar incidents happened throughout his 14-month tour; "The acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war."
 Josh states that these casualties demonstrate the impact of U.S. military policy on both the civilians and the soldiers on the ground.

Ethan and Josh claim that though their unit was following the Rules of Engagement that day, they are taking responsibility for their role in the incident and initiating a dialogue around it; "Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny."
The letter, which they hope to get to the family who lost their father and whose children were injured in the attack, states that they "are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us."
Ethan and Josh are available for interviews. The letter can be seen at: www.lettertoiraq.com [see below]

BACKGROUND ON JOSH STIEBER:
Branch of service: United States Army (USA)

Unit: 1st ID

Rank: Spc.

Home: Laytonsville, Maryland
Served in: Baghdad (Rustamiyah) 07-08 Fort Riley, KS 06-07, 08-09

BACKGROUND ON ETHAN MCCORD:
Branch of service: United States Army (USA)

Unit: 1st ID

Rank: Spc.

Home: Wichita, Kansas


http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5966...m_KEY=2491

####

AN OPEN LETTER OF RECONCILIATION & RESPONSIBILITY TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE
From Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military

Peace be with you.

To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video:

We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses.

We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions.

There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.

We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.

We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.

More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.

Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.

We have asked our fellow veterans and service-members, as well as civilians both in the United States and abroad, to sign in support of this letter, and to offer their names as a testimony to our common humanity, to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation's leaders, and to extend our hands to you.

With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.

Solemnly and Sincerely,
Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5966/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2724

[Keith Millea]

Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times

One of my most respected ex-military officers was Col.David Hackworth.He wrote a book about his adventures as a CO with the 9th Infantry Division down in the Mekong Delta..His book is titled "Steel My Soldiers Hearts".I think that "steel",as in "make hard or tough",is a much better descriptive term than the use of cold heart.That said,it is great to see these two soldiers stand up and say "we were wrong,and we are so very sorry".It takes time to regain the true heart of compassion.These two soldiers are well on their way......

Thanks for the article Ed..

[Peter Presland]

This from Cryptome:

FORWARDED BY pgpboard[at]yahoogroups.com
MSG 034 18.14GMT

WIKILEAKS..SNAKE OIL or JUST A HACKERS WET DREAM??
------------------------------------------------

Its interesting to note that WIKILEAKS is floundering somewhat
from a lack of funds..

The Daily Telegraph reports that the majority of the funds
raised will go towards paying the website's hosting costs, which
are widely distributed across several countries and are heavily
secured against attack.

In an interview joint founder Assange brags that WikiLeaks has
no headquarters, no office, no formal structure other than the
name and the truth-seeking ideology attached to it. Co-founder
or not, Assange is clear about who holds power at Wikileaks. Who
gets the final call in a dispute? "Me, actually," Assange
(former hacker) says. "I'm the final decision if the document
is legit." (This is not reassuring)..

Assange brags about how lean the organisation is with no
premises etc... Then one assumes he would fully disclose his
operating costs. Detailing just why he is looking for a cool
$600K for such a low overhead operation. ($600K overall budget
and just $200K to keep the lights on.)

Existing donors are somewhat concerned, and have refused to
bankroll Assange without acceptable accounting and audit
procedures, including past expenditures. This is the reason why
WIKILEAKS is spinning its wheels. Its an issue of Assange’s
credibility, and NOT the philosophy behind WIKILEAKS.

No transparency or audit trails concerning operating procedures,
or a technical review of security and technology issues which
are supposed to protect whistleblowers; Very lax procedures
concerning the use encryption technology and document
verification using digital signatures.

WIKILEAKS is a very serious accident just waiting to happen,
they convince the whistle blower that their anonimity is
protected, and their data is secured. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
FROM THE TRUTH. Unfortunately someone in an oppressive third
world environment is going to suffer the consequences of Julian
Assange's security assurance snake oil pitch.

What we have here is a high profile ex-hacker trawling for $600K
operating expenses. Anyone with a few bucks can buy into
Assange's snake oil, including fronts for any government agency
anywhere. From that moment on audited accounts don't seem to be
available.

A WIKILEAKS Insider...

Wikileaks is a damn good idea - but there are some very good points made above.

[Helen Reyes]

I was thinking about what John Young wrote earlier and above, and I can't think of a safe way to leak stuff using electronic communications. What, WinRAR it with a password and send the password separately? Use the equivalent of an internet dropsite? The supercomputers have you no matter what, it's just a matter of dialing back to the right time and cracking whatever the encryption is. How many leakers are going to study cryptology in order to get the dox out? And even if they did, why would it be unbreakable by the world's biggest employer of cryptanalysts with the biggest supercomputer farms?

The only safe way to leak something is the old fashioned way, physically, as microfische or hardcopy or on magnetic storage media. And that's not any safer than you make it. Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.

[Ed Jewett]

Helen, I'm still at a loss in technical terms to understand much of the technology of what I do when I sit at my PC and post/blog to the world. (One web site notes an Internet user penetration rate of 0.00001%.) But your insight brings to mind what Vladimir Bukovsky, the veteran Soviet-era dissident wrote about in his book "To Build a Castle" when he depicted earlier days of samizdat, the typing of documents and notes in triplicate with carbon paper and the old "sneaker net" method of hand carrying them across town to meet a fellow for coffee who would go back home and make his own three copies in the same way. Today there are web sites and blogs which use that name. Copies of copies of copies even in the Internet age make for smudged reading and great imprecision as to source and veracity. We are still left alone with what wits, brains, intellect, logic and intuition we can bring to the issue. The great thing about networks like this one is that we can get a lot of minds in the same place to double-check ourselves. Now, with DPF and its satellite systems, we have hundreds of sources of knowledge, intellect, logic and intuition. And it's a lot easier and faster than typing three copies in triplicate.

An afterthought: There's video, now, too... so we have to be tube-literate as well.

[Peter Presland]

Julian Assange is the problem

Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 13:09:14 +0100
From: Walshingham2000 <pgpboard[at]gmail.com>
To: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
Subject: FORWARDED MESSAGE PGPBOARD (160510 1306 GMT)


WIKILEAKS FUNDING DRIVE
-----------------------------------------------

Julian Assange's very public fund raising campaign has effectively
stalled with past and potential investors fading into the
background. As previously indicated it is NOT the philosophy of
WIKILEAKS that is in question, but Assange's credibility.

The lack of any significant high rollers backing Assange has led
to a significant change of direction concerning fund raising.
These are paid interviews and appearances, and appeals to the
internet community to send money.

Keeping in mind that Assange has publicly stated that he needs
$200,000 USD just to keep the lights on, and $600,000 USD to be
fully funded; then just how much has Assange received, how much
has been spent, and on what? A pressing point when one
considered WIKILEAKS is still effectively closed down, and
Assange continues to enjoy a particularly luxurious lifestyle in
South Africa with no comparable income streams.

From information received, since January 2010 WIKILEAKS income
until end of April 2010 has been:

Internet Donations: $132,347 USD

Media Interviews etc. $82,892 USD

Sponsorships: $28,657 USD

The total income YTD is $243,896 USD. Then why aren't the
lights on at WIKILEAKS Mr. Assange?? When will you provide
audited accounts of WIKILEAKS operating expenditure??

Finally, just keep in mind that Assange has not abandoned the
concept of selling information by auction to media groups on an
exclusive basis. Now just where does that fit into WIKILEAKS
philosophy? To put it brutally, it does not, it's a scheme
designed exclusively to fill Assange offshore bank accounts..


Regards
A WIKILEAKS Insider

[Jan Klimkowski]

Peter - I agree. Why does Assange need so much cash, and how is it being spent?

Reading between the lines, I suspect that Josh Stieber and Ethan McCord, the former soldiers who signed the courageous letter above, were intimately involved as whistleblowers in the leaked military video. They are likely under serious surveillance now, and will get numerous rejection slips from potentail employers.

Is Assange doing anything to help support his whistleblowers? Or is he using the $600k for other purposes and, if so, precisely what?

[Magda Hassan]

I know that John over at Cryptome has a day job as an architect to subsidize Cryptome but for all intents and purposes his website fulfills much the same function as Wikileaks and it seems to get by on a lot less than Wikileaks. I have no problem with Julian getting a salary and it would be good if there were others involved getting one as well. There are necessary expenses like travel as well. Then there are are server costs involved but $600,000 is a lot of fund raising. It would be better for WL to have their accounts open. People would feel a lot better about donating under the present circumstances. It is unfair that corporate newspapers use WL as a free resource database (especially given their role in suppressing news) but independent investigative journalists cannot afford to pay and it is not in keeping with the ethos either. Many are happy to donate their time, expertise and server space for free but there needs to be some openess in the deal.