Will WikiLeaks unravel the American 'secret government'?

[Peter Lemkin]

Should Bob Woodward be arrested? (updated)
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Friday, December 10, 2010 - 3:57
I keep thinking about the Wikileaks affair, and I keep seeing the double-standards multiplying. Given how frequently government officials leak classified information in order to make themselves look good, box in their bureaucratic rivals, or tie the President's hands, it seems a little disingenuous of them to be so upset by Assange's activities.

Or consider the case of the most famous of all "insider" journalists: Bob Woodward. Over the past several decades, he's built a highly-lucrative career on his ability to get Washington insiders to talk to him. Less charitably, you could say he's gotten rich giving politicos a vehicle to make their case in print. Just think about how many insiders spill their guts to Woodward, and even provide him with key memos, which are sometimes published as appendices in his opuses. It is apparently entirely acceptable for Woodward to publish remarkably detailed stuff on the most sensitive deliberations of the U.S. government, including the nasty things our officials say about one another and about foreign officials. This well-established practice warrants no adverse comment whatsoever; instead, the usual result is a front page review in the New York Times Sunday Book Review and a #1 position on the best-seller list.

Has anybody proposed arresting Bob Woodward? Has anyone looked into applying the 1917 Espionage Act to his revelations of the most secret deliberations of the national security establishment? Is the State Department telling employees not to buy or read his books, the same way they are telling employees not to look at any of the Wikileaks materials? And remember: Woodward isn't writing about minor issues or even the trivialities of diplomacy; his books deal directly with core issues of war and peace. One could argue that what Woodward digs up and displays-information drawn from the highest and innermost counsels of the U.S. government-is more important and more potentially damaging than zillions of often-trivial memcons by mid-level bureaucrats in overseas embassies. How can these leaks be more sensitive or troublesome than a detailed, blow-by-blow account of Obama's secret Afghanistan decision-making?

I'm not for a minute suggesting that somebody ought to threaten Woodward with prosecution, ban his books, or try to hack his laptop and destroy his hard drive. But the contrast between the reflexive praise with which his books are received-and to be fair, some of them make for pretty interesting reading -- and the "sky is falling" witch-hunt surrounding Julian Assange, is striking.

And I suspect it mostly comes down to this. Elites like the idea of being in charge, and they don't really trust "the people" in whose name they govern, even though it is the latter that pays their salaries, and fights their wars. Elites like the sense of power and status that being "on the inside" conveys: it's a turn-on to know things that other people don't, and it can be so darn inconvenient when the public gets wind of what the current "best and brightest" are actually doing. The idea that ruling elites are in fact "public servants" who serve at our behest is not a big part of their mental make-up, except that some of them do have to get re-elected every few years, and not every seat is safe.

Their view of the public's right to information is akin to the view expressed by Col. Nathan Jessep (memorably played by Jack Nicholson) in the film A Few Good Men. When defense attorney Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) says "I want the truth!," Jessep retorts: "You can't handle the truth!" Unless, of course, it is filtered by establishment journalists like Woodward, and not by some unsympathetic upstart like Assange.

UPDATE: My colleague and friend Jack Goldsmith from Harvard Law School has two good pieces on this issue, both well worth reading. He also noted the double-standard being applied to Woodward and Assange, and suggests that this case actually suggests that the entire system of security classification ought to be re-thought.

[Peter Lemkin]

Medb Ruane: Where's the democracy in hunting Wikileaks off the Net?

Saturday December 11 2010

In January, Hillary Clinton celebrated the power of new technologies to challenge tyrants. Speaking soon after China's alleged cyber attack on Google, the US Secretary of State championed the internet as "the iconic infrastructure of our age" and warned about attempts to target "independent thinkers who use these tools".

She quoted President Obama's words that even in authoritarian countries, information networks were "helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable".

Clinton's joy turned full circle when Julian Assange's independent website WikiLeaks began to publish more than 250,000 classified documents about Iraq, Afghanistan and various US diplomatic interests.

In May, he'd released a cockpit video of an Apache gunship killing 19 civilians in Iraq, including journalists and children. The classified material told of cover-ups, secret assassination units and the killing of civilians.

Assange was arrested in London this week. His site is under virtual fire, with service providers such as PayPal, eBay, Mastercard and Amazon suddenly finding contractual ways to drop WikiLeaks from their domains.

Clinton had clearly intended her remarks about targeting independent thinkers to be heard by repressive regimes outside the United States. Sadly, her own administration risks being counted as an offender.

The Net is buzzing with conspiracy theories about Assange's arrest on an extradition warrant for alleged sexual offences in Sweden. He'd already received death threats. Sarah Palin went on Facebook and Twitter to brand him "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" who should be hunted down "with the same urgency as Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders".

"Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually," Canadian political scientist Tom Flanagan had glibly said on CBC TV. "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."

Assange's leaked documents confirmed what many suspected, chiefly about the wars undertaken by the Bush and Blair administrations. US Private Bradley Manning, who was allegedly a source, is currently awaiting trial.

The cables disclosed diplomatic intelligence about the impossible situation in Afghanistan, about Russia's mafia state ethos under Vladimir Putin, and about Saudi Arabia's enmity towards Iran.

They also revealed new information about various CIA strategies to spy on the UN and shared doubts about David Cameron's potential as British PM.

Edited versions were published in mainstream media, including Der Spiegel, El Pais, the Guardian and The New York Times, apparently without Government censure. These omitted the names of US operatives included in the unedited WikiLeaks files.

One security red flag emerging in the WikiLeaks story is that some three million US public servants were cleared to access the classified information. If you transfer that security issue to other big databases, such as healthcare, the implications for personal privacy are mind-boggling.

The leaks are certainly embarrassing. Some are gossipy responses to leaders such as Silvio Berlusconi ("feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader") and North Korea's Kim Jong-il ("a flabby old chap").

There's no comment yet on Irish leaders, although Ireland features through two areas of perceived strategic interest -- a transatlantic submarine broadband system called the Hibernia Atlantic cable; and the 37-acre Genzyme site, a biotechnology facility near Waterford.

They also record how Irish officials reflected public concerns about using Shannon as an airbase in 2006.

Disclosure always tests boundaries, whether national or personal. But Assange is not accountable in any transparent way. He hasn't broken protocols or editorial conventions because this digital void has none. He's a front-runner in a new dimension and that's the challenge.

The problem is how to regulate and respect things so people can gain and accountability grow, without compromising legitimate interests and personal security. It's a major democratic dilemma, because it could make hundreds of millions of people more literate and informed, if it's regulated appropriately.

Clinton's position is doubly difficult because the kind of democracy and accountability she champions will be threatened if her Government can't identify reasonable boundaries within which Assange and other truth-seekers can work. It's up to the world's biggest democracy to invent new ways of licensing expression in the digital age, even if the same democracy is challenged relent- lessly.

"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?" the journalist John Pilger asked a senior US Department of Defence official, months before Assange's arrest.

"It's not my position to give guarantees on anything," he replied.

Hunting Assange off the Net serves no one except opponents of democracy. I don't know what precise balance can be struck between greater accountability and securing legitimate interests, between respecting classified sources and honouring freedom of expression. But there's something craven in the way online servers have capitulated to who-knows-what pressure behind the scenes.

Should there be a global convention? Who would negotiate it, if stakeholders got together? Silencing WikiLeaks and its tools forever would cripple this 'iconic infrastructure' at the ankles, something like those flat-earth proponents who tried to stop sailors crossing the Atlantic because they believed there was nothing on the other side. A brave new world will be lost if boundaries aren't set.

Irish Independent

[Peter Lemkin]

A Grand Jury has been meeting in secret about convicting Assange in Alexandra, VA..... the axe is about to drop. [they can't have them in D.C. proper - where almost everyone is African-American and more progressive, so they hold all related to 'national security' in Alexandria where all the court jesters live.

Berlin - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was the victim of a conspiracy, buying time for US authorities to prepare a more serious case against him, his lawyer Mark Stephens said in a German media interview published Sunday.

“The whole sex thing is just a postulated allegation over an offence that he can be detained for, while investigations over the actual, more serious crime proceed,” Stephens told Bild am Sonntag newspaper, adding that it had been instigated by the US.

“In Washington a grand jury is being prepared, not necessarily over spying (charges), but to proceed against Julian (Assange) on several counts relating to WikiLeaks,” the lawyer continued.

He said Assange was “putting on a brave face, appears to be in as good spirits as is possible in the circumstances,” adding that he now had a cell to himself in London's Wandsworth prison.

[Peter Lemkin]

A Grand Jury has been meeting in secret about convicting Assange in Alexandra, VA..... the axe is about to drop. [they can't have them in D.C. proper - where almost everyone is African-American and more progressive, so they hold all related to 'national security' in Alexandria where all the court jesters live.

Berlin - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was the victim of a conspiracy, buying time for US authorities to prepare a more serious case against him, his lawyer Mark Stephens said in a German media interview published Sunday.

“The whole sex thing is just a postulated allegation over an offence that he can be detained for, while investigations over the actual, more serious crime proceed,” Stephens told Bild am Sonntag newspaper, adding that it had been instigated by the US.

“In Washington a grand jury is being prepared, not necessarily over spying (charges), but to proceed against Julian (Assange) on several counts relating to WikiLeaks,” the lawyer continued.

He said Assange was “putting on a brave face, appears to be in as good spirits as is possible in the circumstances,” adding that he now had a cell to himself in London's Wandsworth prison.
---------------------------------
It looks like David was correct, USA will ask its Poodle to extradite Assange directly. Being the Poodle, they can't say no....there never were strong enough charges to extradite to Sweden, anyway. It was all a ruse.....to give the USA time to hold a secret Grand Jury in all white, all rich, all conservative Alexandria, VA. It seems the Judge in the UK was in on the conspiracy and Assange was NOT to get bail under any circumstances. If prceedings to extradite to USA starts on Tuesday [now very likely], expect demonstrations, hacking, and riots all over the world....that won't end!....

Long ago I burned my draft card, now I feel like burning my passport.................Obama is not change; and nothing we can believe in....I'm disgusted [more than usual - and that is a lot] in my failed country!......

[Ed Jewett]

America's "Coercive Diplomacy". Washington Threatens Allies Over CIA Kidnapping and Torture Programs

by Tom Burghardt



Global Research, December 12, 2010
Antifascist Calling...


As revelations of U.S. government coercive "diplomacy" continue flowing from the whistleblowing web site WikiLeaks, much to the consternation of official Washington, ruling class circles are working feverishly to downplay the seriousness of the leaks.
On the one hand, senior State Department and intelligence officials claim the cables offer "few surprises" and, at least according to The New York Times, the disclosures "have been more embarrassing than revelatory or harmful to national security."
On the other hand however, "conservative" loons in Congress, their "liberal" colleagues across the aisle and the far-right media noise machine have denounced WikiLeaks and the group's director Julian Assange, as an imminent threat to "national security" and are seeking to have the secret-spillers declared "terrorists." Presumably they could then be tossed into one of America's global gulags or even hunted down and murdered as some have countenanced.
Despite a steady barrage of lies and disinformation, as well as moves by the Obama administration and their corporatist allies to shutter the web site, with some 1,900 mirrors now disseminating Cablegate files world-wide, those efforts have failed.
A CIA Kidnapping Gone Awry
Amongst the treasure-trove of files released last week, we learned that the U.S. Embassy in Berlin was angered over the issuance of arrest warrants for 13 CIA officers for the kidnapping and torture of Lebanese-born German citizen Khaled el-Masri; one of the more infamous cases to have emerged from Washington's secret vaults.
In 2007, after a public outcry in Germany over media revelations, senior Bavarian state public prosecutor Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld issued warrants for CIA officers on suspicion of kidnapping el-Masri.
Prosecutors charged that that the Agency had wrongfully imprisoned the German citizen and caused him grievous bodily harm during his illegal detention.
In late 2003, in a case of mistaken identity, el-Masri was abducted in Macedonia by a CIA snatch-and-grab team and local security agents. After a series of brutal beatings, el-Masri was stripped naked, shot full of drugs, given an enema and a diaper and flown out of the country on an Agency airline, the CIA cut-out, Aero Contractors Ltd.
A 2006 cable from the U.S. Embassy Skopje, Macedonia, 06SKOPJE118, "Macedonia: Prime Minister on Elections, NATO," U.S. Ambassador Gillian Milovanovic reported to Washington that then-Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski pledged that the "GOM will keep its head down and guard up regarding allegations that Macedonia has assisted the USG in the 'el-Masri' case."
The Confidential dispatch labelled "NOFORN" (no foreign distribution) revealed that the Macedonian government "would stay the course" and "would continue to support the Minister of Interior, who has declined to discuss the matter with the local press" over charges that Skopje's security service had collaborated with the CIA in el-Masri's kidnapping and torture.
Skopje's collusion with Washington was all the more ironic considering that prior to the 9/11 provocation, the U.S. secret state had conspired with Kosovo Liberation Army-linked drug traffickers and al-Qaeda terrorists grouped in the shadowy National Liberation Army (NLA) in a violent destabilization campaign that targeted the Macedonian government for "regime change."
As Global Research analyst Michel Chossudovsky has documented, the NLA was "a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)" and, "in a bitter twist, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK)."
Chossudovsky described how "drug money" helped finance the group and that the NLA's ranks were drawn from "Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union" and "senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon [Military Professional Resources, Inc., MPRI, currently holding a Pentagon contract to "assist" Afghanistan's Ministry of Defense, AFC] as well as 'soldiers of fortune' from Britain, Holland and Germany."
Learning perhaps, that is was in their interest to play ball with Washington, or else, the Skopje regime eagerly sought to do their master's bidding by covering-up the abduction and torture of an innocent man.
Spirited away first to Baghdad and then on to the CIA's notorious "dark prison" known as the "Salt Pit" in Afghanistan, el-Masri was detained for four months where, as described by Harper's columnist and constitutional law scholar Scott Horton, he was "repeatedly beaten, drugged, and subjected to a strange food regime that he supposed was part of an experiment that his captors were performing on him."
Months later, his torturers realized they had detained an innocent man and after weeks of bickering, with some Agency officials arguing he should continue to be held incommunicado because he "knew too much," The Washington Post reported he was dumped penniless, on the side of a road in Albania, on orders from then-National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice.
Washington Threatens Their German "Ally"
The WikiLeaks cable, labelled "Secret/NOFORN," 07BERLIN242, "Al-Masri Case--Chancellery Aware of USG Concerns," was fired off from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin on February 6, 2007.
The file provides startling details of a conversation between John M. Koenig, Washington's number two man in Berlin and German National Security Adviser Rolf Nikel.
Koenig warned "that issuance of international arrest warrants would have a negative impact on our bilateral relationship," and, in a thinly-veiled threat "reminded Nikel of the repercussions to U.S.-Italian bilateral relations in the wake of a similar move by Italian authorities last year."
Cynically, Koenig claimed "our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German Government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S."
Despite assertions that "we of course recognized the independence of the German judiciary," the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission wrote that American diplomatic capos "noted that a decision to issue international arrest warrants or extradition requests would require the concurrence of the German Federal Government," and would therefore be subject to coercive threats from the Godfather in Washington.
His German counterpart Nikel "also underscored the independence of the German judiciary," but seeking wiggle room with an eye towards denying el-Masri his day in court, said "the case was subject to political, as well as judicial, scrutiny."
After his summons to imperial chambers, the German National Security Adviser admitted that the warrants had been issued only because of a popular outcry and revulsion by German citizens over U.S. torture policies.
The cable noted, "Nikel also cited intense pressure from the Bundestag and the German media" to bring forth indictments.
This is polite way of saying that despite widespread public outrage, Angela Merkel's right-wing government would be Washington's willing accomplice. After taking the "entire political context" of el-Masri's case against the CIA into account, the German government would capitulate to American demands.
Nikel assured the U.S. Embassy that "the Chancellery is well aware of the bilateral political implications of the case, but added that this case 'will not be easy'." Expressing his willingness to cave-in to Washington at the earliest moment, the German National Security Adviser promised that the Chancellery would "try to be as constructive as possible."
With an eye towards managing the fallout, not doing justice to an innocent man, Koenig "pointed out that the USG would likewise have a difficult time in managing domestic political implications if international arrest warrants are issued." (emphasis added)
This is simply a diplomatic way of telling his German "colleague" that Washington's chief concern was to suppress damaging information here in the heimat that America's "partners" in the global "War on Terror" view the United States as little more than a gang of criminals and torturers. "He [Koenig] reiterated our concerns and expressed the hope that the Chancellery would keep us informed of further developments in the case, so as to avoid surprises."
Nikel promised to do so "but reiterated that he could not, at this point 'promise that everything will turn out well'."
Washington's machinations eventually paid off in spades for the beleaguered Bush regime. Der Spiegel noted "it would be easy to write off the details from the cables as mere trifles if they hadn't been confirmed by reality."
"In 2007," journalists Matthias Gebauer and John Goetz reported "then-Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries decided not to further pursue the 13 CIA agents."
Although their names were still on an Interpol arrest warrant, "the United States stated that it would not recognize its validity."
Compare this with the chorus of voices in official U.S. and European circles now claiming that the Interpol "Red Notice" issued for Julian Assange's arrest possess near-mystical properties!
In collusion with the Bush gang, and doubtless made aware of "implications for relations with the U.S.," Gebauer and Goetz wrote that "Zypries explained that the Americans had made clear to her that they would neither arrest nor hand over the 13 CIA agents," therefore "it made no sense to even try to get them extradited."
Nor did it subsequently "make sense" that German courts in the aftermath of the scandal, would provide el-Masri with even a scintilla of justice.
The Associated Press reported last week that the Cologne Administrative Court rejected el-Masri's lawsuit December 7, "seeking to force Berlin into prosecuting suspected CIA agents" who had abducted him seven years earlier.
The court ruled that "the German government's decision not to seek the extradition of the agents, despite the arrest warrant issued by a German court, was legal."
El-Masri's attorney, Manfred Gnjidic, said the WikiLeaks documents "'clearly show' the 'massive efforts' on the part of the U.S. government to keep el-Masri's case out of the courts."
Here in the United States, similar efforts have been met by collusive behavior between the federal judiciary and the Bush and Obama administrations.
In squashing the American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, El-Masri v. Tenet, the court upheld the notorious "state secrets privilege" asserted by the government.
"The release of the cable," the World Socialist Web Site notes, "only further underscores that American diplomacy is as filthy as its torture policy, and that the European governments are complicit in the policy of kidnapping and extrajudicial prosecution."
Despite unsuccessful efforts thus far to shutter WikiLeaks and with threats to prosecute Julian Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act a distinct possibility were the journalist extradited either by Britain or Sweden to the United States in some dirty deal, Washington rages like a wounded beast even as new revelations, and scandals, unfold.


Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

Tom Burghardt is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Tom Burghardt

[Peter Lemkin]

Extradition Part 1
Submitted by Peter Kemp on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 08:24


This is the first of a series looking into the extradition process by which Sweden is seeking to have Julian Assange extradited from the UK.

While I'm not a European lawyer, our Aussie system has a lot in common with the UK, which is logical since our legal heritage came from the UK.

Here's my take on a preliminary examination of legislation and it's application to the Swedish extradition application.

Firstly, there is the European Arrest Warrant system (EAW) by which signatory parties have a common warrant form in all the different languages which for the purposes of extracting relevant information (and not going through tortuous online translations from Swedish), I shall cite the UK version, but keep in mind it's the UK form designed for UK prosecutors to extradite from other category 1 territories.

That form template is here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extradition/annex_b/

Scrolling down we find the following:

Statement

I am satisfied that a Crown Prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service, whose function is to decide whether or not to prosecute an individual for the alleged commission of criminal offences, has decided to charge the person named herein and to try him for the offences specified above and for which this warrant is issued.

Description of the circumstances in which the offence(s) was (were) committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by the requested person:...

Note in bold: "to charge" and the immediate response has to be but Sweden hasn't charged him!

This ties in with Julian Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens saying on Channel 4 News that there are other legal arguments that will likely be advanced:

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/di...10/clipid/...

And the question he raises is: Can such an extradition warrant be used for the purposes of investigation?

Maybe it can. I can't give a definitive answer, yet, (or may not be able to unless I find some case law) but the warrant form indicates that in the English version, extradition for investigation would be unusual. If there was to be a variation of that sentence, the bureaucrats would have allowed for it, one would think. Stay tuned on that one.

One day someone might leak (nudge nudge, wink wink say no more) a copy of that warrant in Swedish (presumably) and then we'll know.

The next bit of legislation to look at is the UK's Extradition Act 2003, here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/contents

In Assange's matter, the warrant is a part 1 extradition to a category 1 territory. Category 1 territories are all the EU member states plus Gibraltar.

Section 11 Bars to extradition

(1)If the judge is required to proceed under this section he must decide whether the person’s extradition to the category 1 territory is barred by reason of—

(a)the rule against double jeopardy;

(b)extraneous considerations;

©the passage of time;

(d)the person’s age;

(e)hostage-taking considerations;

(f)speciality;

(g)the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another category 1 territory;

(h)the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from a non-category 1 territory.

Section 11 (b) extraneous considerations is where we need to look and that's section 13:

13 Extraneous considerations

A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—

(a)the Part 1 warrant issued in respect of him (though purporting to be issued on account of the extradition offence) is in fact issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or

(b)if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.

Prejudice...at his trial. Eureka, as they say, in a land down under.

Like cannot get a fair trial, might be extradited to the US (a complex issue of the UK having a veto on that if extradited to Sweden, deserving of a separate post.)

To be continued PART 2.

[Peter Presland]

Peter L is not going to like this video: Sex, Lies, Iran, Israel and WikiLeaks, but it is another persuasive contribution from that video-narrator extraordinaire Anthony Lawson and I commend it to all.

My own position - in simple terms, fluid and evolving, stands right now as follows:

1. The leaks are real - but massaged and grossly manipulated with probably a plant or two - or a hundred....
2. Wikileaks has been compromised almost from the start and cannot be expected to hurt Israel in any significant fashion. John Young's complex analyses of the entire set up is about as close as we are likely to get for the time being. (The link is a Google search of the Cryptome site on the single word "Wikileaks" BTW)

BTW - I have now posted an archive of bit-torrents for the entire Wikileaks collection at WikiSpooks here The files themselves are NOT hosted on WikiSpooks (or rather most of them aren't but, from random sampling most have at least 50 live seeds and peers with the bigger ones having several hundred to well over a thousand. IOW all the info released to date is out of the box and cannot be put back in - period.

It's completeness and accuracy is another matter.

[David Guyatt]

The WikiLeaks information partially corroborates what sources told The Nation in June about how the Obama administration was expanding the footprint of covert actions conducted by the military, not the CIA, to more than seventy-five countries. The frontline battles, the sources alleged, were in Yemen and Somalia. "In both those places, there are ongoing unilateral actions," said a special operations source, adding that they do "a lot in Pakistan too."

"...covert action conducted by the military, not the CIA, to more than seventy-five countries..."

Seventy-five! Which countries? What covert actions are they talking about? Might it be, for example, the latest Swedish car bomb referenced in Peter Presland's post No. 14 of that thread? After all it seems the Swedish military (NATO's secret member) knew about this bomb in advance? Does that suggest a military covert op? It does to me.

Might it also have been London's 7/7? And numerous others too?

I ask because (covert military operations in) 75 countries is an awful lot of sovereign territory in which to engage in illegal acts of war.

[Peter Lemkin]

The WikiLeaks information partially corroborates what sources told The Nation in June about how the Obama administration was expanding the footprint of covert actions conducted by the military, not the CIA, to more than seventy-five countries. The frontline battles, the sources alleged, were in Yemen and Somalia. "In both those places, there are ongoing unilateral actions," said a special operations source, adding that they do "a lot in Pakistan too."

"...covert action conducted by the military, not the CIA, to more than seventy-five countries..."

Seventy-five! Which countries? What covert actions are they talking about? Might it be, for example, the latest Swedish car bomb referenced in Peter Presland's post No. 14 of that thread? After all it seems the Swedish military (NATO's secret member) knew about this bomb in advance? Does that suggest a military covert op? It does to me.

Might it also have been London's 7/7? And numerous others too?

I ask because (covert military operations in) 75 countries is an awful lot of sovereign territory in which to engage in illegal acts of war.

Its half the nations and a likely guess is that is encompasses 80+% of the land mass of all nations! Not bad....for an Empire...beats the Roman and British Empires by a mile [1.6 Km]! :aetsch: Amerika is WAY, WAY out of control!!!!...and must be stopped or it will END life on this Planet through, at first, endless wars everywhere and finally environmental and nuclear destruction - long after having raped the planet of every bit of monetary and resource wealth.....All could be accomplished in just a few more years....:flute:

[David Guyatt]

Peter L is not going to like this video: Sex, Lies, Iran, Israel and WikiLeaks, but it is another persuasive contribution from that video-narrator extraordinaire Anthony Lawson and I commend it to all.

My own position - in simple terms, fluid and evolving, stands right now as follows:

1. The leaks are real - but massaged and grossly manipulated with probably a plant or two - or a hundred....
2. Wikileaks has been compromised almost from the start and cannot be expected to hurt Israel in any significant fashion. John Young's complex analyses of the entire set up is about as close as we are likely to get for the time being. (The link is a Google search of the Cryptome site on the single word "Wikileaks" BTW)

BTW - I have now posted an archive of bit-torrents for the entire Wikileaks collection at WikiSpooks here The files themselves are NOT hosted on WikiSpooks (or rather most of them aren't but, from random sampling most have at least 50 live seeds and peers with the bigger ones having several hundred to well over a thousand. IOW all the info released to date is out of the box and cannot be put back in - period.

It's completeness and accuracy is another matter.

Thanks for this Peter. I've checked some of his other material too, but I couldn't find anything about him personally.... no wiki page or similar. Do you know if he has a public bio/background please?

Te name Lawson always makes me a little jumpy... :afraid: