Will WikiLeaks unravel the American 'secret government'?

[Magda Hassan]

Agreed Peter. Others taking advantage of the turmoil to muddy the waters some more.

[Ed Jewett]

Doesn't mean it is not coming at some point in the future by some one else. Even perhaps another venue like Wikispooks. Why doesn't this guy publish the Israeli cables himself? Instead he just complains about JA.

The skills necessary for typing are woefully short of the skills necessary for hacking or cryptographic analysis.

I think one answer to the conundrum of who Wiki/Assange is, and/or where he gets his material, would be to have the information and understanding about the complexity of security that supported those systems that had to have been hacked (if they weren't donated), and the degree of skills, mathematical knowledge, technology or simply insider's access to obtain them. For example, did or could this fellow Manning have access to the range of material (or the skills to get it?) he is claimed to be responsible for giving to Wikileaks?

Who here has that knowledge, or can obtain that information?

At any rate, if after all the years have passed since 1947 (the creation of the US security state) and our own World War II history of reading others' cables, the Enigma machine, the deep cryptology knowledge of Bletchley Park, the formation and expansion of the NSA, or the massive push backed by serious dollars in the fields of encryption and cyber-espionage in the run-up to and after 9/11, and the US still had its diplomatic cables published en masse, then it deserve the humiliation.

Or maybe it's a bit of harmless self-deprecation because of course we have unbreakable cypher sytems to protect our Hilarious Secretary of State.

Don't we?

[Ed Jewett]

Kiss the Internet Goodbye – “Cyberwars” Over Wiki-Leaks Begin

Posted on December 8, 2010 by willyloman

“Sites for Visa, PayPal, Sen. Lieberman also targeted”

(attacking the site of Joe Lieberman? The guy who has multiple “kill the internet” bills on his desk? Oh there’s a good idea.)

“Anonymous” has dubbed their cyber warfare campaign “Operation Payback,” threatening to “fire” on any entity that attempts to censor WikiLeaks.
Service to mastercard.com was unavailable at time of this writing. The website for the Swedish prosecutor’s office was also offline, as was a site for the lawyer representing Assange’s accusers.”
Others to suffer downtime this week include PayPal’s blog, EveryDNS – the domain name service provider that pulled WikiLeaks off it’s .org address — and Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) .gov website. Lieberman’s staff was responsible for prompting Amazon.com to take WikiLeaks off its US-based cloud servers.
Researchers with Panda Security have been tracking the wave of attacks, blow-for-blow.
In recent days, the online to-do over WikiLeaks has been called the world’s “first serious infowar” and a “war for control of the Internet.” Raw Story

There you have it. Banks, PayPal, commerce, prosecutors, victims’ lawyers, and even Joe Lieberman… all being attacked just in time to justify shutting down the internet on our behalf. All because Julian Assange decided to turn himself in to the authorities for a crime that had just been filed a few hours prior and in a nation-state that is just as corrupt as the U.S. and certainly a partner in the criminal Global War on Terror. Now there is a thousand file sharing sites that have put up his encrypted “data bomb” and a couple hundred other dissent sites that have set up mirrors for all that “truth” that he has been leaking one little bit at a time. What do you think is going to happen to those sites once the shit hits the fan? Well, they will all be shut down of course for national security reasons. And the group that is doing all this hacking? “Anonymous”? Haven’t figured that one out yet? Ever heard of Al CIAdah? Same thing.

[Ed Jewett]

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

The woodshed

The crime of Wikileaks was lèse majesté, an insufficient deference to Power. The cables are instructive. The Americans could care less about the opinions of the leaders of various nonentities like Saudi Arabia or Great Britain. What is important is that American diplomats conduct a periodic check-up - like having your teeth cleaned - in order to ensure that everybody knows who the boss is. Thus, from time to time, world leaders are interviewed by American diplomats who say nothing and just write everything down. The various leaders struggle to say what they think the Americans would want them to say, and if they meet the test, they are allowed to stay in power. Just striving to meet the test teaches a lesson. Perhaps the biggest surprise from the cables is how hard everybody strives to meet the American test of fealty.

We're in the middle of a long social experiment to see what we will put up with. The plutocrats keep asking for more, and we just give it to them. There is absolutely no push-back whatsoever. In fact, all we do is ask for more punishment and deprivation. The results of this experiment have been so startling to the plutocrats that they have until recently not asked for everything, in fear that perhaps they would awaken a sleeping giant of rebellion. Nope. No giant. Just sleeping. The continuing non-reaction to the massive financial theft in Europe and the United States, where the thieves were not only not punished, but massively rewarded, was the final test. The only reason why we are not all slaves building pyramids to the glory of the plutocrats is that they, in their infinite generosity of spirit, haven't asked us yet. They will, and we'll start hauling rocks.

Did you note the petulance in Obama's press conference on giving in completely to Republican demands that he extend the tax cuts for the very richest (at a massive cost that will have to be borrowed from China, and which will raise the deficit and have to be paid off by old people living on cat food when the American right suddenly starts worrying about the deficit)? You know what he was saying? How dare you expect any backbone from me when you have no backbone yourselves!

On the other hand, note the class consciousness of the other side. Big corporations like Amazon, Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal enforced the will of the plutocracy without the slightest compunction ("It is fascinating to see the tentacles of the corrupt American elite."). This is also intended to be instructive. There is no chance in fighting them as they will stick together, even in cases where it appears that their class cohesiveness will cost them money. Were we smart enough, we might learn something from them.

And what of various institutions, some of which are supposed to be protecting us? The Swedish government and judicial system, Interpol, the British judicial system, all instantly gave up even the slightest pretense of attempting to follow their own rules, when those rules are all they are really about. Power wins out over everything. There is no hope. Give up even the slightest struggle and save yourselves from being destroyed (although you will have to be slaves).

Many people noted the hypocrisy of the announcement of the American hosting of World Press Freedom Day (the Washington Post, busy not doing the job that Wikileaks has had to do, helpfully explains the meaning of the word 'irony'). And what of the freedom of the internet itself, something of great interest to Hillary when she could use it as a weapon against China? Wikileaks attempted to use the logic of the freedom of the internet to turn the secret-keepers into knots and thus destroy their conspiracy. The powerful simply changed the rules to deal with Wikileaks. They want us to know that they can change the rules. They can always change the rules. Eventually, the internet will be completely reserved for plutocrats to exploit us to make money. We're demonstrated that we are not responsible enough to have freedom of speech. We've also demonstrated that we won't object when they take our freedoms.

The treatment of Julian Assange and Wikileaks is intended to be over-the-top, hypocritical, offensive, and outrageous ("wholly comparable to the kind of treatment doled out to dissidents in China or Burma"). He's supposed to end up executed in an American military prison. Wikileaks put a real scare into them, which explains the overreaction. They want us to be reminded of punishments in the Dark Ages. It is a lesson to anybody who might present any real challenge to power.
at 12/08/2010 08:59:00 AM

[Peter Lemkin]

just a thought, that the two major Wikileaks threads could be combined. Anyway if not, just so the other doesn't get forgotten it is here.

[Peter Lemkin]

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

[Peter Lemkin]

WikiLeaks cables: Whitehall told US to ignore Brown's Trident statement

Top civil servants are quoted as telling Washington that UK would renew nuclear deterrent, contradicting Gordon Brown

David Leigh
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 December 2010 22.35 GMT

Protesters at a February 2007 march through central London against renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP

Two senior Whitehall officials assured US diplomats that the renewal of Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent would go ahead, apparently contradicting then prime minister Gordon Brown's public statements proposing some disarmament by the UK, according to leaked US embassy cables.

The London embassy sent a secret cable back to Washington last autumn reporting conversations with the two civil servants, Richard Freer and Judith Gough, in which they cast doubt on the significance of Brown's announcement at the UN general assembly that Britain might cut the number of planned new Trident submarines from four to three.

It is not clear from the cables whether or not the Britons were speaking to the Americans on Brown's authority. In the dispatches, US embassy officials describe them as "HMG [Her Majesty's Government] sources" and mark that their identities should be protected.

Freer is one of Whitehall's most influential officials and a member of David Cameron's small team of private secretaries at Downing Street.

According to the leaked cables, US anxiety about the future of Britain's Trident missiles followed Brown's speech at the UN in September 2009 on global nuclear disarmament.

In London, Freer and Gough told the Americans that Brown's words came as a surprise to them because there was no actual change of British nuclear policy under way. There would continue to be "no daylight" between the US and the UK on the existing £20bn Trident replacement scheme, the Americans were assured.

One US dispatch, classified "secret … noforn", meaning only for US eyes, says: "[Brown's] announcement of a proposed fleet reduction caught many in the MoD, FCO and Cabinet Office by surprise."

It continued: "Dr Richard Freer (strictly protect) head of defence and security policy … told Poloff [political officer] September 23 that 'in an ideal world we'd have done a bit more pre-vetting [of the speech]'. One of Freer's Cabinet Office deputies was blunter, telling Poloff that the announcement was 'unexpected' …

"Both Freer and Judith Gough (strictly protect), deputy head of the security policy group at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stressed to Poloff that HMG has not formally decided to scale back the deterrent but would only do so if a government defence review determines, in Freer's words, that it would be 'technically feasible' to maintain 'continuous deterrence patrols' with three submarines …

"Freer criticised media for exaggerating the significance of Brown's announcement, opining that it was 'not really a major disarmament announcement'."

The cable added: "Julian Miller, the deputy head of the foreign and defence policy secretariat at the Cabinet Office, assured the political minister counsellor September 24 that HMG would consult with the US regarding future developments concerning the Trident deterrent to assure there would be 'no daylight' between the US and UK."

A Foreign Office spokesman refused to say yesterday whether or not the two officials had authority to talk to the US.

US concern about the future of Trident had first surfaced a few weeks earlier, before Brown's speech to the UN, when British media carried unattributed political briefings which suggested the Labour government intended to defer crucial Trident replacement decisions.

The nuclear-armed French, like the Americans, initially believed this news was significant, with one French official telling the US: "The UK is starting to seem really convinced that disarmament is possible, since it may abandon its Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile programme."

The French were so upset they protested to US diplomats that Labour ministers were acting like "demagogues". Brown's stance that nuclear weapons in general were immoral was, by implication, threatening "an essential part of French strategic identity", they complained. British civil servants said the hints of disarmament were confined to the Cabinet Office.

The US chargé d'affaires, Richard LeBaron, told Washington Gough had also named the British official behind the off-the-record media briefings. "Judith Gough (protect) … told Poloff July 21 that the unnamed official who had briefed the press was Simon McDonald, the Cabinet Office head of foreign and defence policy. She said that press reports about HMG plans to defer Trident replacement design work 'came as news' to FCO and MoD officers …

"Diana Venn (protect), an officer in the Cabinet Office's foreign and defence policy secretariat, told Poloff July 23 that there had been a 'slight misunderstanding' when McDonald briefed the press. She stressed that 'Trident is not on the table … we won't disarm unilaterally.'"

The new Conservative administration is described as pro-Trident in the dispatches. "Conservative party defence sources have privately affirmed to embassy officers their commitment to the Trident deterrent," diplomats cabled before the general election.

The Conservative government's current public position is that a Trident replacement decision is being deferred for several years, past the next general election.

Trident missiles are leased from the US. The cables detail how Britain's submarines, which carry the missiles with nuclear warheads, depend on "substantial American design assistance".

[Carsten Wiethoff]

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:

[David Guyatt]

I particularly liked the cable that reveled how Whitehall "mandarins" told the US to ignore the duly elected Prime Minister's decision about reducing Trident fleet and revealed the name of the person involved in briefing the press on it.

Delightful.

Last time I checked, I thought that passing on critical information to a foreign power was known as "espionage" and was punishable under the UK's secrecy statutes.

The cable was dated September 2009.

Which might mean that it has a meaningful connection to the then opposition Conservative Party's pledge of fealty to the US made during the election run up.

It seems to me that laws governing espionage, betrayal and so on have be shown to be entirely meaningless for all intents and purposes.

It also shows that the UK are, throughout its entire political and establishment fabric a US pawn, governed from Washington through its nominated "Consul" in Whitehall.

And I bet not one major UK political party will raise an eyebrow.

[Peter Lemkin]

I particularly liked the cable that reveled how Whitehall "mandarins" told the US to ignore the duly elected Prime Minister's decision about reducing Trident fleet and revealed the name of the person involved in briefing the press on it.

Delightful.

Last time I checked, I thought that passing on critical information to a foreign power was known as "espionage" and was punishable under the UK's secrecy statutes.

The cable was dated September 2009.

Which might mean that it has a meaningful connection to the then opposition Conservative Party's pledge of fealty to the US made during the election run up.

It seems to me that laws governing espionage, betrayal and so on have be shown to be entirely meaningless for all intents and purposes.

It also shows that the UK are, throughout its entire political and establishment fabric a US pawn, governed from Washington through its nominated "Consul" in Whitehall.

And I bet not one major UK political party will raise an eyebrow.

Would make a great Monty Python skit....on the 'Dead Parrot' theme.....My PM is dead!...no he isn't, he' just sleeping or out of the loop.....etc... NB - that leak and a few others will not help poor JA in his court hearings....if they are as much on the up and up as are the 'lap-poodle' backroom political stuff! David, David, "espionage!, betrayal!" Come, come now....surely this can all be straitened out in a smoke filled back room in Whitehall. The laws are theirs to bend or break, as they please. Money and Power and Fidelity to them are the real laws followed.......it seems