Wikileaks publishes Stratfor Global Intelligence files.

[Magda Hassan]

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

Fw: [CT] Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case

[TABLE="class: cable, width: 749"]
[TR]
Email-ID[TD]375123[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
Date[TD]2011-01-26 15:23:28[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
From[TD]burton@stratfor.com[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
To[TD]secure@stratfor.com[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Not for Pub --

We have a sealed indictment on Assange.

Pls protect

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sean Noonan
Sender: ct-bounces@stratfor.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:16:53 -0600
To: CT AOR
ReplyTo: CT AOR
Subject: [CT] Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case
January 25, 2011 3:37 PM
Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-2...03543.html

A report that investigators have so far failed to establish a direct link
between the founder of the document-dumping website WikiLeaks and the Army
private accused of providing the site with hundreds of thousands of secret
State Department cables won't derail the military's case as much as it
might seem.

The case against Army Pfc. Bradley Manning didn't hinge on investigators
uncovering a direct link to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange anyway, CBS
News National Security Correspondent David Martin reports.

Special Section: WikiLeaks

On Monday, NBC News reported that military officials said Manning couldn't
be directly linked to Assange in allegedly handing off the cables and
other secret documents that led to last summer's publication of the
Afghanistan and Iraq war logs.

But no one ever thought there was direct contact between Assange and
Manning, Martin reports. Assange meeting or e-mailing Manning would be
like the director of the Central Intelligence Agency meeting or e-mailing
a CIA agent. The theory of the case is that Assange orchestrated the leak
through cut outs deliberately designed to immunize himself from charges of
espionage.

In his own e-mails, Manning refers to himself as a source for Assange even
though he did not give the documents to Assange but allegedly to a third
person while home on Christmas leave, Martin reports.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department was
considering filing espionage charges in the case.

Meanwhile, Manning continues to be held in a military brig while the Army
considers prosecuting him. He has been charged with illegally obtaining
more than 150,000 secret cables and giving more than 50 of them and a
classified video to an unauthorized person.

Manning's lawyer told The Associated Press Friday that a mental-health
investigation to determine if Manning can stand trial will likely begin in
February.
--

Sean Noonan

Tactical Analyst

Office: +1 512-279-9479

Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

http://www.stratfor.com

[Magda Hassan]

This document will be updated as warranted.

If you've got new info to put here, send it to
papers@project-pm.org / @papersplx
or one of the operators @ irc.project-pm.org

Taken from
(137922_SovereignCyprusNames.doc)

See also (http://i.imgur.com/Nke9O.png), a chart (originally in Visio) sent on 2011.12.05 vs the earlier (36383_International Deal Structure - Stratcap.pdf) sent on 2011.09.29. The earlier PDF omits Hong Kong.

Relevant URLs:
http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/29...tures.html

http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/30...tcap-.html

Investigations being slowed by the fact that a number of companies exist using "Stratcap" in their names.

==================================

Sovereign Trust (Hong Kong) Limted
Ready Made Company List

All companies listed are broadly empowered.
All names marked with an asterix* are older therefore additional fees will apply

TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS

A Co Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41166
Admirable Consultants Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41165
Astounding Enterprises Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41163
Astonishing International Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41164
Auden Trading Inc Inc: 25/01/11 Reg No: E40709
B Co International Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41169
Bede Enterprises Limited Inc: 12/04/11 Reg No: E40871
Canterbury Trading Limited Inc: 12/04/11 Reg No: E40872
Celebration Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41170
Charming International Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41173
Class Trading Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41174
Classy Enterprises Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41175
Elegant International Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41178
Extraordinary Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41180
Fantastic Consultants Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41182
Gallant Trading Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41188
Glamorous Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41185
Glorious Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41186
Handsome Enterprises Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41191
*Industry Standard Enterprises Limited Inc: 26/01/10 Reg No: E39845
Kitanglad Marine, Ltd Inc: 06/04/11 Reg No: E40857
Marvellous International Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41194
Miracle Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41193
*Searchlight International Limited Inc: 26/01/10 Reg No: E39841

TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS HYBRID

A Co International Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41167
Astonishing Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41162
Astounding International LimitedInc: 29/08/11 Reg No: E41161
B Co Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41168
Celebration International LimitedInc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41171
Charming Enterprises Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41172
Class International Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41176
Classy Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41177
*Corona Consultants Limited Inc: 25/07/06 Reg No: E36065
*Courierit Worldwide Limited Inc: 06/07/09 Reg No: E39421
*Dartford Limited Inc: 15/04/08 Reg No: E38300
*DUKE International Limited Inc: 23/05/08 Reg No: E38456
Elegant Consultants Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41179
Extraordinary Enterprises LimitedInc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41181
Fantastic Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41183
Glamorous Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41184


All companies listed are broadly empowered.
All names marked with an asterix* are older therefore additional fees will apply

TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS HYBRID

Handsome Holdings Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41190
*Historic Corp Inc: 03/08/10 Reg No: E40322
*Islington Consultants Limited Inc: 26/01/10 Reg No: E39836
Marvellous Enterprises Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41195
Miracle Consultants Limited Inc: 26/08/11 Reg No: E41192


TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL WITH COMMITTEE MEMBER

Absolutely Fabulous Ltd Inc: 21/01/11 Reg No: E40703
Fantastic Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40675
Glory Ltd Inc: 13/07/10 Reg No: E40230
*Triple Eight Limited Inc: 26/10/09 Reg No: E39656
*Twelve Limited Inc: 26/10/09 Reg No: E39654

TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL WITHOUT COMMITTEE MEMBER

Brilliant Investments Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40676
Epic Enterprises Limited Inc: 12/01/11 Reg No: E40665
Establishment Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40677
Fantastic Investments Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40678
Golden Dragon Holdings Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40679
Silver Moon Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40680
Solid Investments Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40681
Solid Trading Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40682
Steady Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40683
Sun Consultants Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40684
Sun Investments Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40685
Wonderful Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40686
Wonderful Enterprises Limited Inc: 17/01/11 Reg No: E40687

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

Elba Group Enterprises Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666755
Georgia Consultants Limited Inc: 19/05/11 Reg No: 1649407
Kitsune Group Developments LimitedInc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666757
Long Zhi Consultants Limited Inc: 18/08/11 Reg No: 1667021
Outside Backs Ltd Inc: 18/07/11 Reg No: 1661445
Pacific Basin Group Holdings Inc Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666777
Phoenix Group Consultants LimitedInc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666742
Red Sun Consultants Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666716
Samba Consultants Limited Inc: 19/08/11 Reg No: 1667306
Samba Group Enterprises Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666719
Sentinel Consultants Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666715
Sentry Consultants Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666717


All companies listed are broadly empowered.
All names marked with an asterix* are older therefore additional fees will apply

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

Sentry Group Enterprises Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666718
Synchronize Systems Consultants Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666720
Synchronize Systems Enterprises Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666749
Synchronize Systems International LimitedInc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666750
Tanuki Enterprises Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666752
Valley Group Enterprises Limited Inc: 16/08/11 Reg No: 1666780

HONG KONG

Azores Consultants Limited Inc: 05/11/10 Reg No: 1524738
Buckley Enterprises Limited Inc: 07/07/11 Reg No: 1627558
Calderworth Enterprises Limited Inc: 08/07/11 Reg No: 1628499
Hedlington Holdings Limited Inc: 06/07/11 Reg No: 1627047
Kentish Enterprises Limited Inc: 02/02/11 Reg No: 1558784
Sunstruck Enterprises Limited Inc: 21/09/11 Reg No: 1666114
*Tinwiddy Trading Limited Inc: 15/09/09 Reg No: 1373147
*Yellow Emperor Holdings Limited Inc: 06/07/09 Reg No: 1350634

HONG KONG COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE

*The Artinasia Foundation Limited Inc: 29/06/09 Reg No: 1349425
The Jupiter Foundation Limited Inc: 15/02/11 Reg No: 1561043

SEYCHELLES

*Anton Holdings Inc Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052888
*Bluebell Enterprises Inc Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052895
*Botham Holdings Limited Inc: 09/09/09 Reg No: 065639
*Chameleon International Limited Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052898
*Ember Inc Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052901
*Falcon Group Limited Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052903
*Kestrel International Limited Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052906
*Olympia Trading Limited Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052910
*Power Dynamics Limited Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052913
*Regal Holdings Limited Inc: 09/09/09 Reg No: 065641
*Winning Gold Limited Inc: 08/08/08 Reg No: 052916


All companies listed are broadly empowered
All names marked with an asterix* are older therefore additional fees will apply

CAYMAN

*888 Investments Limited Inc: 11/01/10 Reg No: TB-235721
*CATHAY STAR LIMITED Inc: 11/01/10 Reg No: TB-235825
*Mandarin International Ltd Inc: 15/01/10 Reg No: TB-236005
*Pacific Dragon Ltd Inc: 15/01/10 Reg No: TB-236006
*(To enquire Dubai Office before you reserve or make a sale of the following two companies)
*MANDARIN GOLD LTD Inc: 14/01/10 Reg No: TB-236197
*PACIFIC AND ORIENT INVESTMENTS LTD Inc: 14/01/10 Reg No: TB-236193

SINGAPORE

*Kirkat Pte Ltd Inc: 04/11/08 Reg No: 200821085R
*Silverhold Pte Ltd Inc: 04/02/10 Reg No: 201002724G
*Utama Ventures Pte Ltd Inc: 04/02/10 Reg No: 201002747E

BELIZE

Baydrive International Limited Inc: 30/11/10 Reg No: 99,402

[Magda Hassan]

Did Private Spy Shop Get US Intel From Bin Laden Raid?

Emails released by WikiLeaks suggest Stratfor may have gained access to highly sensitive material gathered from Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad compound.

By David Corn
| Mon Feb. 27, 2012 11:49 AM PST





Wikimedia Commons
On May 1, 2011, not only did US special forces kill Osama bin Laden, they collected a treasure trove of intelligence from his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistanmaterial that would be of tremendous value to analysts, both in and out of government. Less than two weeks later, Fred Burton, the vice president for intelligence of Stratfor, a private US intelligence firm, was telling colleagues within the secretive company that he could get his hands on the Abbottabad booty. If so, that would be quite a coup for Stratfor, which peddles expensive intelligence reports on economic, security, and geopolitical matters to private clients, such as major corporations, around the world.
"I can get access to the materials seized from the OBL safe house," writes Stratfor's vice president for intelligence.
This week, WikiLeaks published 214 internal Stratfor emails that it was provided by Anonymous, the online activist collective that hacked into Stratfor's servers and swiped 5 million emails. In one of those messages, sent by Burton to a "Secure List" of Stratfor colleagues on May 12, 2011, he noted,

I can get access to the materials seized from the OBL safe house.
What are the top (not 45) questions we want addressed.

Within minutes, Sean Noonan, a tactical analyst at Stratfor, wrote back:

1 specific operational plans
2 communications with franchise groups (like AQAP [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula])
3. connections to anyone associated with the Pakistani state.

This sort of informationwhat Al Qaeda was planning and with whom it was workingcould certainly be sold to Stratfor's clients for a good price. And this email raises a question: Has Stratfor, which maintains various contracts with the Defense Department and other federal agencies, penetrated the US intelligence establishment for its own benefit? ("Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them," Stratfor said in a statement on Monday; the company did not respond to a message from Mother Jones.)
The next day, Burton wrote back to Noonan:

More on # 3 --
Several /in ISI and Pak Mil, less than 12.
More on this later.

Burton seemed to be suggesting that the intelligence obtained at the compound indicated that less than a dozen officials working with Pakistani intelligence and military were somehow connected to bin Laden. He didn't cite any specific materials or documents.
Noonan was excited. He emailed back: "awesome. Please see what you can find out about what kind of department they are in, or area they cover." Another Stratfor employee, Kamran Bokhari, replied to Burton's note: "No surprises here. We will never find out their departments but their ranks would be very telling."
In response, Burton gave the impression that he might indeed be able to learn more of what was in the cache of OBL intelligence. He emailed, "I may be able to get that, let me ask." And hours later he sent this email.

Same response as before:
Mid to senior level ISI and Pak Mil with one retired Pak Mil General that had knowledge of the OBL arrangements and safe house.
Names unk [unknown] to me and not provided.
Specific ranks unk to me and not provided.
But, I get a very clear sense we (US intel) know names and ranks. I also do not know if we have passed this info to the GOP. [Government of Pakistan]
If I was in command, I would not pass the info to the GOP, because we can't trust them. I would piece meal the names off and bury in a list of other non-related names for internal ISI traces in a non-alerting fashion, to see what the Pakis tell us.
I may also trade one or two names for the captured tail rudder.

Burton seemed to have informalor unofficial accessto this information. (He didn't describe it in these emails.) And the final line about trading a captured tail rudderfrom the helicopter disabled (and then blown up) at the compound?for the identities of Pakistani military or intelligence officials connected to bin Laden is, to say the least, intriguing.
The released emails do not indicate whether Burton truly possessed significant access to the bin Laden materialand what he had to do to obtain such access. But as a former deputy chief of the State Department's counterterrorism division, he could be expected to have contacts within the US intelligence community that could feed him information of this sort.
Burton, who has not responded to an email query, might not be the best spy. In a 2008 "Internal Use Only" email to Stratfor colleagues, sent out after the presidential election, he claimed to have sources with information on Democratic "Dirty Tricks," noting,

The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found. Will get more on this when the time is right. My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money? This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.

The Russian-money-to-Obama story never materialized, but perhaps Burton was better connected concerning the OBL raid. The emails he sent on this matter ought to cause intelligence watchers to wonder whether Stratfor has burrowed into US intelligence and sensitive information has been compromisedand whether Burton and his cloak-and-dagger colleagues exploit their ties to US spies for their own good.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/...aden-intel

[Peter Lemkin]

AMY GOODMAN: The whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has published an internal email from the private intelligence firm Stratfor that suggests the Justice Department has obtained a sealed indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. In an email dated January 26, 2011, the vice president of Stratfor, Fred Burton, wrote, quote, "We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect," unquote.
On Monday, WikiLeaks began publishing more than five million emails from Stratfor's servers that were obtained by the hacker group Anonymous. The Justice Department has not confirmed the existence of the secret indictment, but it had been previously reported that a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, met in 2010 and '11 to consider criminal charges against Assange. Legal experts say the Justice Department could charge Assange under the Espionage Act for disseminating classified U.S. State Department cables and other information.
On Tuesday, Assange released a statement condemning U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for conducting the secret grand jury. Assange said, quote, "This neo-McCarthyist witch hunt against WikiLeaks may be Mr Holder's defining legacy. Any student of American history knows that secret justice is no justice at all. Justice must be seen to be done... Secret Grand Juries with secret indictments are apparently Eric Holder's preferred method of dealing with publishers who hold his administration to account. Eric Holder has betrayed the legacy of Madison and Jefferson. He should drop the case or resign," said Assange.
The news of the possible indictment against Assange comes less than a week after U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning was arraigned for leaking classified military and State Department documents to WikiLeaks. The 24-year-old Manning was formally charged with 22 counts, including aiding the enemy, wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet, and theft of public property.
Joining us now is Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He was at Bradley Manning's arraignment and is a legal adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. He's the co-author of the book Hell No: Your Right to Dissent in 21st-Century America [with Margaret Ratner Kunstler].
Michael Ratner, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of this email that was on Stratfor's servers that WikiLeaks has just released.
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it has a lot of important implications. First of all, we have a secret grand jury that, as we understand, was sitting in Alexandria, Virginiasecret. Then you have what the emails refer to as a sealed indictment. Again, it's secret. And then somehow you have a private intelligence company, Stratfor, a "shadow CIA," as people have called it, having information about this sealed indictmentsecret againthat Julian Assange doesn't have, that WikiLeaks doesn't have, that his lawyers don't have. So, what you see here is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, all for the purpose of keeping secret crimes that the United States has committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. So it appears that they will go to every length to try and keep secret material that the American people and the people of the world ought to know. So one major significance is that they're continuing to use secrecy.
The second one, if it's trueand of course it looks like this guy, Fred Burton, was very high up at one point in the State Department diplomatic corps, was involved in counterterrorism, and, it's very likely, has knowledge that may well be true about this sealed indictment. Already, the Obama administration has gone after six people under the Espionage Act, six different cases under the Espionage Act. That's more cases under the Espionage Act than happened insince the Espionage Act was actually begun in 1917. So you're seeing really an effort by the Obama administration, despite claims to the contrary that they would have a more open government, that it wants a closed government and that it's willing to go after journalists.
And of course, a third implication is here is a clear case of going after WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, journalists who have revealed, you know, millions, at this pointcertainly hundreds of thousandsof documents implicating the United States in serious crimes.
AMY GOODMAN: I'm looking at another email from Fred Burton, the vice president of Stratfor, who says, "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat food forever."
MICHAEL RATNER: I have to say, when you read through the WikiLeaks press release, which has a number of the Stratfor documents that refer to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, they're really sickening, because what they really say is we have to treat Julian Assange as a high-tech terrorist, we have to treat Julian Assange as somebody who we have to take down like al-Qaeda.
And if you look at what they say they should do to Julian Assange, it's actually what's happened. One of the things the emails say is, "We have to cut off all their funding supplies. We have to just give them no money at all." And that's why, of course, you see MasterCard and Visa having cut off any donations to WikiLeaks. "We have to go after his associates."
AMY GOODMAN: Meaning they stopped anyone from giving them money online through their credit cards.
MICHAEL RATNER: I can't use my credit card
AMY GOODMAN: And PayPal.
MICHAEL RATNER: and I can't use PayPal to give money to WikiLeaks. So what is said in the Stratfor documents that we have to do to Julian Assange has actuallyand WikiLeakshas actually happened. So you really have to ask yourself what's going on here. We have this private intelligence company hand in gloveit's like a revolving doorwith U.S. intelligence.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, Michael Ratner, explain again just what Stratfor is, why they have all this information.
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, Stratfor is what you would call a private intelligence company. So, as you had on your show the other day, if you're somebody fromif you're somebody from Coca-Cola or some big corporation, and there's some opposition to what you're doing, whether it's in Bhopal or with Coca-Cola, you hire Stratfor to try and get information on your opponents. And sure, some of the information is just, you know, regular, you know, what you can get off the internet. But some of it, if you read these documents, apparently is information they get from various people within the intelligence agencies. They then transmit that information to the company, so that they can combat opposition to their policies. And it's not just private companies who hire Stratfor. Apparently, the U.S. Marines have hired Stratfor. The Department of Homeland Security has hired Stratfor. So what you see is the privatization of essentially the CIA operating in the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, Julian Assange is not a U.S. citizen. How is he possibly indicted for treason?
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I thinkit's not treason. It's the Espionage Act. And in fact, one thing you just said, treason is under the Constitution. It's adhering to your enemy, particularly during time of war. And in fact, the Espionage Act can be looked at as a way to get around the strict requirements of treason that are in the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, I think there's a serious question whether someone like Julian Assange, who is not a U.S. citizen, can be indicted under the Espionage Act. What duty does Julian Assange owe the United States vis-à-vis the Espionage Act? If I, tomorrow, surface documents that had to do with the Soviet Union, or Russia, rather, and what it's doing in Chechnya, that were classified, could Russia actually get my extradition from the United States because I put out classified documents belonging to Russia? I don't think so. But that would beif they actually have an indictment and if they go after Julian Assange in the way that so far they've indicated they want to, that will certainly be an important issue. What duty did Julian Assange owe to the United States?
AMY GOODMAN: Is Stratfor breaking the law? How is Stratfor selling intelligence legal, when WikiLeaks giving it away for free is not?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, certainly, if Stratfor is giving away classified material, if it's actually getting information from people within the government that is classified, if it's actually paying anybody within the government, then yes, Stratfor, by selling it, would be considered to be violating the lawand particularly if you look and compare Stratfor to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is journalism. WikiLeaks is putting it out there. Stratfor is selling it privately. They're not journalists. So they don't have a journalist's defense here.
I mean, the important thing to understand about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is this is, I think, perhaps the first time, if this indictment is true, that the United States has actually indicted a journalist for goingfor revealing material given to himapparently, allegedly given to himby someone who had access to classified material. But it's the first time that I know of where actual documents have been the subject of such a criminal indictment.
AMY GOODMAN: You were at the arraignment of Bradley Manning?
MICHAEL RATNER: Yes, I was there. I went down for that, last week.
AMY GOODMAN: Tell us exactly what happened.
MICHAEL RATNER: I had to go to Fort Meade. It's hard to get in. They inspect your car. They open the trunks. You have to have insurance. You wait for hours. And then you walk into a courtroom that looks like a hospital room. It's Celotex ceiling, cheap carpet, bright lights, eight-foot-high ceiling. And you sit in this really bureaucratic, antiseptic courtroom. There's about eight spectators, maybe 10, maybe 10 press people. Bradley Manning walks in in his dress uniform, short haircut, glasses, sits down next to his attorney. And then there's about a one-hour proceeding in which he is asked to plead guilty or not guilty, or a third choice, which is the one he took, to defer prosecution.
And Amy, what I couldn't get over is how bureaucratic it all is. Here you have the man who allegedly downloaded documents showing the numberyou know, thousands of people, civilians, killed in Iraq, the "Collateral Murder" video, Reuters journalists being killed, children being shot, and they're having this bureaucratic proceeding. And when I sat there, my feeling was only the people who should be in that roomfirst, the people who should be defendants are obviously the people who started this Iraq war and are continuing it, and the Afghan war. But the people who should be observing it are the dead Reuters journalists, their ghosts, the ghosts of the children and the people killed in Iraq, and the people killed in Afghanistan. That's what this should be about. Instead, what this government is doing is taking a whistleblower like Bradley Manning and going after him because they don't want whistleblowing, but they don't want their crimes revealed. And people have to understand that. You can argue all you want about technical violations of the law, but in the end, what this is about is the United States wanting to suppress the truth.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Julian Assange's fears? I saw him last July in London. I interviewed him on Independence Day weekend. And this concern aboutwell, we haven't even talked about the possible extradition to Sweden. But if he is extradited, why he fears that he could be sent, more likely than extradited, to the United States than if he is in Britain, and what that would mean if he was brought into this country? Is it possible the sealed indictment would never be unsealed?
MICHAEL RATNER: I mean, one of the reasons that the Center for Constitutional Rights and myself have been going to the Bradley Manning hearings is because what happened to Bradley Manning, and what is still happening to Bradley Manning, may very well and likely happen to Julian Assange.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, is it true that Bradley Manning actually faces the death penalty?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, he has a
AMY GOODMAN: Though the prosecutors say they could give him life, that a judge could decide that they would give him death.
MICHAEL RATNER: That's correct. The aiding to the enemy charge, which is the first charge against him, against Bradley Manning, does carry a death penalty. What the prosecutor has said is they will not ask for the death penalty. I don't know if that makes it impossible for the judge to give a death penalty. I think the judge could still give a death penalty in that case.
But what could happen to Julianlook at Bradley Manning's case, and ask yourself what can happen to Julian Assange. He spent nine months in solitaire, some of it stripped to the bone, forced to go outside and stand in formation stripped to the bone, temperature problems, in solitaire, no ability to really exercise, no materialsreally what amounts to, and many people have said and I think, as well, amounts to torture for the nine months. Finally, there was a huge public outcry. Even the State Department official who was forced to resign, P.J. Crowley, said this isn't right. And he wasand Manning
AMY GOODMAN: And that lost P.J. Crowley his job.
MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: He said that at MIT, the former State Department spokesperson. And soon he was out of his
MICHAEL RATNER: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: State Department spokepersonship position.
MICHAEL RATNER: So that's what to look at. Look at that example when you think of what could happen to Julian Assange. He comes here, he gets off some airplane, and they take him probably to Alexandria, Virginia, because where you go for the firstwhere you first land is usually where the indictment is. They take him to Alexandria.
AMY GOODMAN: That's where the secret grand jury is going to be.
MICHAEL RATNER: That's where the secret grand jury is. They put him into some hellhole in solitary. They put special administrative measures on him, which are called SAMs, that probably will allow no communication with anyone. Let's say one of his lawyers wants to go in and talk to him. They can talk to them, but they probably can't say anything outside, anything to the press or anything. So he gets treated like Bradley Manning. He gets SAMs put on him. And thenand then that continues. And he won't getvery unlikely they would give him bail. So if you look at Bradley Manning, you can look at what happens to Julian Assange. And, of course, there is at this pointI don't think there's a death penalty chargewe don't know until we see the indictmentagainst Julian Assange. There is a death penalty in a different part of the Espionage Act, but it's not the one they seem to be investigating Julian Assange for.
AMY GOODMAN: Could a sealed indictment never be unsealed?
MICHAEL RATNER: No. A sealed indictment, if theyif and when they want to extradite him, they're going to have to unseal that indictment. But at that point, he's going to be in custody somewhere. I mean, he's now in custody, arguably. He can't leave England. He has a bracelet on. He has to check into the police station. So he is in custody still. But he's not in a prison. If and when they decideif and when they go for extradition, whether it's from the U.K., United Kingdom, or from Sweden, if that's where he is
AMY GOODMAN: And is it easier to extradite him from Sweden?
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, we don't know the answer to that. My guess is that a bigger country like England, which has incredibly good attorneys on extradition and has actually recently held up a hacker's case, the guy who went into the Pentagon computer, a young maneight years they've been trying to extradite him to the U.S. and haven't gotten himthat Julian Assange will have the most support and the best legal team in the United Kingdom, and that Sweden, my guess, because it's a smaller country that the U.S. can bat around, will be easier for the United States to get Julian Assange
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, legal adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, author of the book with [Margaret Ratner Kunstler] Hell No.
AMY GOODMAN: The whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has published an internal email from the private intelligence firm Stratfor that suggests the Justice Department has obtained a sealed indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. In an email dated January 26, 2011, the vice president of Stratfor, Fred Burton, wrote, quote, "We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect," unquote.
On Monday, WikiLeaks began publishing more than five million emails from Stratfor's servers that were obtained by the hacker group Anonymous. The Justice Department has not confirmed the existence of the secret indictment, but it had been previously reported that a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, met in 2010 and '11 to consider criminal charges against Assange. Legal experts say the Justice Department could charge Assange under the Espionage Act for disseminating classified U.S. State Department cables and other information.
On Tuesday, Assange released a statement condemning U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for conducting the secret grand jury. Assange said, quote, "This neo-McCarthyist witch hunt against WikiLeaks may be Mr Holder's defining legacy. Any student of American history knows that secret justice is no justice at all. Justice must be seen to be done... Secret Grand Juries with secret indictments are apparently Eric Holder's preferred method of dealing with publishers who hold his administration to account. Eric Holder has betrayed the legacy of Madison and Jefferson. He should drop the case or resign," said Assange.
The news of the possible indictment against Assange comes less than a week after U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning was arraigned for leaking classified military and State Department documents to WikiLeaks. The 24-year-old Manning was formally charged with 22 counts, including aiding the enemy, wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet, and theft of public property.
Joining us now is Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He was at Bradley Manning's arraignment and is a legal adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. He's the co-author of the book Hell No: Your Right to Dissent in 21st-Century America [with Margaret Ratner Kunstler].
Michael Ratner, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of this email that was on Stratfor's servers that WikiLeaks has just released.
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it has a lot of important implications. First of all, we have a secret grand jury that, as we understand, was sitting in Alexandria, Virginiasecret. Then you have what the emails refer to as a sealed indictment. Again, it's secret. And then somehow you have a private intelligence company, Stratfor, a "shadow CIA," as people have called it, having information about this sealed indictmentsecret againthat Julian Assange doesn't have, that WikiLeaks doesn't have, that his lawyers don't have. So, what you see here is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, all for the purpose of keeping secret crimes that the United States has committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. So it appears that they will go to every length to try and keep secret material that the American people and the people of the world ought to know. So one major significance is that they're continuing to use secrecy.
The second one, if it's trueand of course it looks like this guy, Fred Burton, was very high up at one point in the State Department diplomatic corps, was involved in counterterrorism, and, it's very likely, has knowledge that may well be true about this sealed indictment. Already, the Obama administration has gone after six people under the Espionage Act, six different cases under the Espionage Act. That's more cases under the Espionage Act than happened insince the Espionage Act was actually begun in 1917. So you're seeing really an effort by the Obama administration, despite claims to the contrary that they would have a more open government, that it wants a closed government and that it's willing to go after journalists.
And of course, a third implication is here is a clear case of going after WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, journalists who have revealed, you know, millions, at this pointcertainly hundreds of thousandsof documents implicating the United States in serious crimes.
AMY GOODMAN: I'm looking at another email from Fred Burton, the vice president of Stratfor, who says, "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat food forever."
MICHAEL RATNER: I have to say, when you read through the WikiLeaks press release, which has a number of the Stratfor documents that refer to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, they're really sickening, because what they really say is we have to treat Julian Assange as a high-tech terrorist, we have to treat Julian Assange as somebody who we have to take down like al-Qaeda.
And if you look at what they say they should do to Julian Assange, it's actually what's happened. One of the things the emails say is, "We have to cut off all their funding supplies. We have to just give them no money at all." And that's why, of course, you see MasterCard and Visa having cut off any donations to WikiLeaks. "We have to go after his associates."
AMY GOODMAN: Meaning they stopped anyone from giving them money online through their credit cards.
MICHAEL RATNER: I can't use my credit card
AMY GOODMAN: And PayPal.
MICHAEL RATNER: and I can't use PayPal to give money to WikiLeaks. So what is said in the Stratfor documents that we have to do to Julian Assange has actuallyand WikiLeakshas actually happened. So you really have to ask yourself what's going on here. We have this private intelligence company hand in gloveit's like a revolving doorwith U.S. intelligence.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, Michael Ratner, explain again just what Stratfor is, why they have all this information.
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, Stratfor is what you would call a private intelligence company. So, as you had on your show the other day, if you're somebody fromif you're somebody from Coca-Cola or some big corporation, and there's some opposition to what you're doing, whether it's in Bhopal or with Coca-Cola, you hire Stratfor to try and get information on your opponents. And sure, some of the information is just, you know, regular, you know, what you can get off the internet. But some of it, if you read these documents, apparently is information they get from various people within the intelligence agencies. They then transmit that information to the company, so that they can combat opposition to their policies. And it's not just private companies who hire Stratfor. Apparently, the U.S. Marines have hired Stratfor. The Department of Homeland Security has hired Stratfor. So what you see is the privatization of essentially the CIA operating in the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, Julian Assange is not a U.S. citizen. How is he possibly indicted for treason?
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I thinkit's not treason. It's the Espionage Act. And in fact, one thing you just said, treason is under the Constitution. It's adhering to your enemy, particularly during time of war. And in fact, the Espionage Act can be looked at as a way to get around the strict requirements of treason that are in the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, I think there's a serious question whether someone like Julian Assange, who is not a U.S. citizen, can be indicted under the Espionage Act. What duty does Julian Assange owe the United States vis-à-vis the Espionage Act? If I, tomorrow, surface documents that had to do with the Soviet Union, or Russia, rather, and what it's doing in Chechnya, that were classified, could Russia actually get my extradition from the United States because I put out classified documents belonging to Russia? I don't think so. But that would beif they actually have an indictment and if they go after Julian Assange in the way that so far they've indicated they want to, that will certainly be an important issue. What duty did Julian Assange owe to the United States?
AMY GOODMAN: Is Stratfor breaking the law? How is Stratfor selling intelligence legal, when WikiLeaks giving it away for free is not?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, certainly, if Stratfor is giving away classified material, if it's actually getting information from people within the government that is classified, if it's actually paying anybody within the government, then yes, Stratfor, by selling it, would be considered to be violating the lawand particularly if you look and compare Stratfor to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is journalism. WikiLeaks is putting it out there. Stratfor is selling it privately. They're not journalists. So they don't have a journalist's defense here.
I mean, the important thing to understand about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is this is, I think, perhaps the first time, if this indictment is true, that the United States has actually indicted a journalist for goingfor revealing material given to himapparently, allegedly given to himby someone who had access to classified material. But it's the first time that I know of where actual documents have been the subject of such a criminal indictment.
AMY GOODMAN: You were at the arraignment of Bradley Manning?
MICHAEL RATNER: Yes, I was there. I went down for that, last week.
AMY GOODMAN: Tell us exactly what happened.
MICHAEL RATNER: I had to go to Fort Meade. It's hard to get in. They inspect your car. They open the trunks. You have to have insurance. You wait for hours. And then you walk into a courtroom that looks like a hospital room. It's Celotex ceiling, cheap carpet, bright lights, eight-foot-high ceiling. And you sit in this really bureaucratic, antiseptic courtroom. There's about eight spectators, maybe 10, maybe 10 press people. Bradley Manning walks in in his dress uniform, short haircut, glasses, sits down next to his attorney. And then there's about a one-hour proceeding in which he is asked to plead guilty or not guilty, or a third choice, which is the one he took, to defer prosecution.
And Amy, what I couldn't get over is how bureaucratic it all is. Here you have the man who allegedly downloaded documents showing the numberyou know, thousands of people, civilians, killed in Iraq, the "Collateral Murder" video, Reuters journalists being killed, children being shot, and they're having this bureaucratic proceeding. And when I sat there, my feeling was only the people who should be in that roomfirst, the people who should be defendants are obviously the people who started this Iraq war and are continuing it, and the Afghan war. But the people who should be observing it are the dead Reuters journalists, their ghosts, the ghosts of the children and the people killed in Iraq, and the people killed in Afghanistan. That's what this should be about. Instead, what this government is doing is taking a whistleblower like Bradley Manning and going after him because they don't want whistleblowing, but they don't want their crimes revealed. And people have to understand that. You can argue all you want about technical violations of the law, but in the end, what this is about is the United States wanting to suppress the truth.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Julian Assange's fears? I saw him last July in London. I interviewed him on Independence Day weekend. And this concern aboutwell, we haven't even talked about the possible extradition to Sweden. But if he is extradited, why he fears that he could be sent, more likely than extradited, to the United States than if he is in Britain, and what that would mean if he was brought into this country? Is it possible the sealed indictment would never be unsealed?
MICHAEL RATNER: I mean, one of the reasons that the Center for Constitutional Rights and myself have been going to the Bradley Manning hearings is because what happened to Bradley Manning, and what is still happening to Bradley Manning, may very well and likely happen to Julian Assange.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, is it true that Bradley Manning actually faces the death penalty?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, he has a
AMY GOODMAN: Though the prosecutors say they could give him life, that a judge could decide that they would give him death.
MICHAEL RATNER: That's correct. The aiding to the enemy charge, which is the first charge against him, against Bradley Manning, does carry a death penalty. What the prosecutor has said is they will not ask for the death penalty. I don't know if that makes it impossible for the judge to give a death penalty. I think the judge could still give a death penalty in that case.
But what could happen to Julianlook at Bradley Manning's case, and ask yourself what can happen to Julian Assange. He spent nine months in solitaire, some of it stripped to the bone, forced to go outside and stand in formation stripped to the bone, temperature problems, in solitaire, no ability to really exercise, no materialsreally what amounts to, and many people have said and I think, as well, amounts to torture for the nine months. Finally, there was a huge public outcry. Even the State Department official who was forced to resign, P.J. Crowley, said this isn't right. And he wasand Manning
AMY GOODMAN: And that lost P.J. Crowley his job.
MICHAEL RATNER: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: He said that at MIT, the former State Department spokesperson. And soon he was out of his
MICHAEL RATNER: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: State Department spokepersonship position.
MICHAEL RATNER: So that's what to look at. Look at that example when you think of what could happen to Julian Assange. He comes here, he gets off some airplane, and they take him probably to Alexandria, Virginia, because where you go for the firstwhere you first land is usually where the indictment is. They take him to Alexandria.
AMY GOODMAN: That's where the secret grand jury is going to be.
MICHAEL RATNER: That's where the secret grand jury is. They put him into some hellhole in solitary. They put special administrative measures on him, which are called SAMs, that probably will allow no communication with anyone. Let's say one of his lawyers wants to go in and talk to him. They can talk to them, but they probably can't say anything outside, anything to the press or anything. So he gets treated like Bradley Manning. He gets SAMs put on him. And thenand then that continues. And he won't getvery unlikely they would give him bail. So if you look at Bradley Manning, you can look at what happens to Julian Assange. And, of course, there is at this pointI don't think there's a death penalty chargewe don't know until we see the indictmentagainst Julian Assange. There is a death penalty in a different part of the Espionage Act, but it's not the one they seem to be investigating Julian Assange for.
AMY GOODMAN: Could a sealed indictment never be unsealed?
MICHAEL RATNER: No. A sealed indictment, if theyif and when they want to extradite him, they're going to have to unseal that indictment. But at that point, he's going to be in custody somewhere. I mean, he's now in custody, arguably. He can't leave England. He has a bracelet on. He has to check into the police station. So he is in custody still. But he's not in a prison. If and when they decideif and when they go for extradition, whether it's from the U.K., United Kingdom, or from Sweden, if that's where he is
AMY GOODMAN: And is it easier to extradite him from Sweden?
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, we don't know the answer to that. My guess is that a bigger country like England, which has incredibly good attorneys on extradition and has actually recently held up a hacker's case, the guy who went into the Pentagon computer, a young maneight years they've been trying to extradite him to the U.S. and haven't gotten himthat Julian Assange will have the most support and the best legal team in the United Kingdom, and that Sweden, my guess, because it's a smaller country that the U.S. can bat around, will be easier for the United States to get Julian Assange
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, legal adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, author of the book with [Margaret Ratner Kunstler] Hell No.

[Magda Hassan]

http://911truthnews.com/stratfor-imam-of-ground-zero-mosque-is-an-fbi-op...One of the first juicy bits to trickle out of the Wikileaks release of 5 million Stratfor emails is thecomment from Fred Burton, Stratfor's Vice President of Intelligence, that the Imam of the controversial so-called Ground Zero mosque is an "FBI operational asset." Burton, who was formerly a special agent with the US State Department's Diplomatic Security Service and the Deputy Chief of their counterterrorism division, made the comment on an email chain regarding a New York Observer article, Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque. The controversy surrounding the "Ground Zero mosque" overwhelmingly dominated the news and discussion surrounding the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

[Magda Hassan]

WikiLeaks emails suggest Bin Laden corpse brought to America'

2 hours ago 2,448 Views [/url]


The now-famous picture of Barack Obama and others in the White House situation room, watching details of the raid that caught and killed Osama bin Laden.

Image: The White House

INTERNAL EMAILS in a major global intelligence firm, published by WikiLeaks, suggest that Osama bin Laden's body may have been brought to America after he was killed by US Navy Seals.
The emails, from the intelligence firm Stratfor which offered services to major international corporations, are being published by the whistleblowing site having been obtained in an attack on Stratfor's servers by the Anonymous movement.
In one email, sent by Stratfor's vice-president for intelligence Fred Burton and timestamped just hours after Barack Obama announced details of the Pakistani raid that killed bin Laden Burton [url=http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1094322_-alpha-obl-.html]declares:

Reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness.

Another, 25 minutes later with the subject Body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane' adds: "Than [sic] onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda".
Dover, DE' refers to Dover in Delaware, the site of a major air force base around 175km from Washington.
In another email sent an hour later, Burton who is considered a leading expert on terrorism and security, and who previously served as the second-in-command at the Department of State's counterterrorism division - adds:

If body dumped at sea, which I doubt, the touch is very Adolph Eichman [sic] like. The Tribe did the same thing with the Nazi's ashes.We would want to photograph, DNA, fingerprint, etc.
His body is a crime scene and I don't see the FBI nor DOJ letting that happen.

Adolf Eichmann was a leading organiser of the Holocaust who later fled to Argentina on a fake passport until he was captured by Mossad and brought to trial in Israel. He was executed and cremated and his ashes spread at sea, so that there could be no memorial to him.
In response to that email, the company's CEO George Friedman a child of Holocaust survivors wrote:

Eichmann was seen alive for many months on trial before being sentenced to death and executed. No one wanted a monument to him so they cremated him. But i dont know anyone who claimed he wasnt eicjhman.No comparison with suddenly burying him at sea without any chance to view him which i doubt happened.

Some seven hours later, Burton responded again:

Body is Dover bound, should be here by now

While it is not clear whether Burton is relying on any internal military source, or merely making an educated guess and while it should be noted that the email exchanges begin with the word reportedly' the emails, if true, would undermine the US claim that bin Laden's body was buried at sea within hours of his death.
Previous emails from the Stratfor cache, which WikiLeaks says is made up of some five million emails, suggest that the Pakistani intelligence forces were aware of bin Laden's presence in the country a charge Pakistan has consistently denied.
The compound in which bin Laden lived and was killed, just outside Abbottabad, was torn down earlier this week.
http://www.thejournal.ie/wikileaks-email...1-Mar2012/

[Magda Hassan]

Stratfor's blatant hypocrisy toward WikiLeaks

Stratfor wants Assange arrested but has no qualms using WikiLeaks material

(All G.I. Files email ID numbers in footnotes)



It's no secret that Stratfor hates Julian Assange. On February 27, WikiLeaks began the release of over 5 million emails from the global intelligence company. Within the first 400 or so emails, roughly 70 of them mention WikiLeaks or Assange. The most consistent thing in these emails is a strong hatred for the WikiLeaks founder.


[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container, width: 1"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption"]WikiLeaks G.I. Files logo
(modified, original image via WikiLeaks)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The attacks against Assange come in a wide range, from simple name-calling"douche,"[SUP]1[/SUP]"fucking idiot,"[SUP]2[/SUP] "delusional nut"[SUP]3[/SUP]to multiple claims that he is a terrorist.[SUP]4[/SUP] He is called "anti-American" more than once,[SUP]5[/SUP] with one Stratfor analyst claiming that he "hates America more than [Osama bin Laden]."[SUP]6[/SUP]While claims of Assange's anti-Americanism are widespread, they are unfounded, as WikiLeaks does not target specific countries but publishes the material it receives. Assange has also spoken favorably of America's Founding Fathers and First Amendment. (For a good analysis on this issue see "Debunked: WikiLeaks is Anti-American.")


Beyond the insults come threats and wishes for harm against Assange. After his arrest in December 2010, Australian ex-Senator Bill O'Chee writes "Hooray!" then comments, "Sadly he didn't have a car accident on the way there."[SUP]7[/SUP] The threats continue: "he needs to be water boarded,"[SUP]8[/SUP] "He'll be eating cat food forever,"[SUP]9[/SUP] "He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo,"[SUP]10[/SUP] "tactical nuke solves everything,"[SUP]11[/SUP] and so on.


It is one thing to insult and threaten, but another to discuss plausible methods of capturing someone. Stratfor Vice President Fred Burton offers multiple ways in which he thinks Assange may end up in U.S. prison. He discusses bankrupting Assange, taking down his infrastructure,[SUP]12[/SUP] moving him from "country to country to face various charges" for 25 years,[SUP]13[/SUP] and charging him with "7-12 [years] for conspiracy."[SUP]14[/SUP] He mentions using the same tools used to dismantle Al-Qaeda to "nail and de-construct" WikiLeaks.[SUP]15[/SUP] When Assange was planning to speak at the Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) conference in Las Vegas (an appearance he cancelled due to security concerns), Burton suggested revoking his travel status and having him taken into custody as a material witness.[SUP]16[/SUP]


[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container, width: 1"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption"]Stratfor Vice President Fred Burton.
(image via quarkbase)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Burton then begins to discuss the idea of using a sealed indictment to imprison Assange,[SUP]17[/SUP] commenting that he would "be easy to indict."[SUP]18[/SUP] He says the Department of Justice won't seek prosecution itself, but that Congress would press for criminal prosecution.[SUP]19[/SUP] Stratfor analyst Sean Noonan then references[SUP]20[/SUP] Attorney General Eric Holder's comments on the matter, which attest to Burton's viewpoint: "[P]eople would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act […] [T]here are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal." Burton then confirms, "We have a sealed indictment on Assange."[SUP]21[/SUP] Assange has sincecommented that they had three sources of information about the indictment before the Stratfor email.


Despite their intense hatred for Julian Assange and beliefs that he should be imprisoned, Stratfor holds no issues with using the information WikiLeaks has released. On numerous occasions they have sent the contents of various cables to each other via email.[SUP]22[/SUP] With the release of the Afghan War Logs, Burton asked that DSS surveillance reports be "culled out." [SUP]23[/SUP] Stratfor CEO George Freidman, while having previously said WikiLeaks was, "dumpster diving and only getting the top layer of the garbage and thinking it was gold," [SUP]24[/SUP] said that Stratfor needed to be prepared to go through Cablegate once it was released, noting "this stuff seems important." [SUP]25[/SUP] He subsequently tasked the analyst staff to do so. [SUP]26[/SUP]


Not only that, but Stratfor mirrored [SUP]27[/SUP] Cablegate as it was released for its own private research, commenting that the mirror "definitely should not be ma[de] available to the public, or to our subscribers."[SUP]28[/SUP] While debating possible legal issues of storing classified information, they quelled their concerns by simply "throw[ing] a password on it." [SUP]29[/SUP]


While this hypocrisy has been seen in many other organizations such as the New York Times, Stratfor has truly set a new standard. Despite their hatred for Assange and their wish for legal action to be taken against him, they still found much use in WikiLeaks' material, and even received increased web traffic by featuring articles on the organization. [SUP]30[/SUP] But, no matter how many times WikiLeaks is attacked, the fact stands that its releases have fueled thousands upon thousands of articles across the globe and continue to do so to this day.






Footnotes: G.I. Files email ID numbers:
1. Email ID: 1050427
2. Email ID: 1633932
3. Email ID: 1630947
4. Email ID: 1056988, 1649125, 1067796
5. Email ID: 1633932, 1657261
6. Email ID: 1050427
7. Email ID: 370352
8. Email ID: 1628042
9. Email ID: 1056988
10. Email ID: 364817
11. Email ID: 1646125
12. Email ID: 1067796
13. Email ID: 1056763
14. Email ID: 1057220
15. Email ID: 1067796
16. Email ID: 391504
17. Email ID: 391504
18. Email ID: 1056763
19. Email ID: 1056763
2O. Email ID: 1084229
21. Email ID: 375123
22. Email ID: 364817, 968422, 5192411, 5114800
23. Email ID: 364732
24. Email ID: 1078864
25. Email ID: 1025066
26. Email ID: 1029168
27. Email ID: 1029237
28. Email ID: 1044386
29. Email ID: 1039924
30. Email ID: [URL="http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5211776_please-leave-wikileaks-featured-.html"]5211776

[/URL]http://mmcetera.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/...ainst.html[URL="http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5211776_please-leave-wikileaks-featured-.html"]
[/URL]

[Magda Hassan]

[TABLE="width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD="class: postHeader, colspan: 2"]

Stratfor "Source" James Casey Leaves FBI

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
One of the "sources" that Stratfor chief Fred Burton queried for information about Wikileaks was "a senior FBI Hqs agent and former DSS agent" with the email jimcasey58@aol.com.
They were evidently quite close. In October of 2007 Burton sent along Stratfor's Terrorism Intelligence Report for review by jimcasey58@aol.com, and this was the reply forwarded to other Stratfor employees:

From: jimcasey58@aol.com [mailto:jimcasey58@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:43 PM
To: burton@stratfor.com
Subject: Re: Terrorism Intelligence Report Security Contractors in Iraq:
Tactical and Practical Considerations
Good Stuff Fred! I can just picture you and I strapping on a big ol one
and leading a Blackwater team into a dangerous motorcade! OK, so maybe
the most dangerous thing we do is cut in line at Starbucks. We're
too old (and smart) for this other shit. Jim

In October 2010, jimcasey58@aol.com sent an email to Burton on the announcement that the Pentagon was anticipating a "massive Iraq war leak":

From: James Casey
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:39:34 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: WikiLeaks plans major' announcement within hours as Pentagon
braces for massive Iraq war leak
This is why………..even though the FBI is always the first to be
criticized for not playing nice-nice in the sandbox………….the
concept of "widely sharing of information" is not always a great idea.
For a number of years I have used the very example of "a slick sleeved
private, siting in a tent in Baghdad, looking at thousands of classified
reports on SIPRNET", as a bad way to business. Even I didn't think that
was going to be the exact scenario that has played out with this WikiLeaks
fiasco. Maybe everybody at the DNI and DHS who have been pimping the
"share by rule, withhold by exception," concept for the last nine years
will change their tune a little, and acknowledge that "need to know" is
still a valuable idea.

Sounds exactly like the defense being pursued by Bradley Manning's attorneys at the moment.
Burton considered jimcasey58@aol.com a source, probing him for inside information. On 11-27-2010, Burton sent an email with the subject line "Wikileaks":
Jim: How bad will the next round be? Got any idea?
Burton clearly felt jimcasey58@aol.com was his own little Wikileaks window into the DoJ. So on 1-26-2011 when Burton sent an email to secure@stratfor.com saying he had intelligence that the DoJ had a "sealed indictment" on Assange, you have to wonder where it came from.
Now I'm thinking, might as well put the email address "jimcasey58@aol.com" through a search and see what comes up. Lo and behold, there's only one non-Stratfor related hit: a Collier County, Florida bid solicitation for "Security Consultant," starting on January 26, 2012 and ending on February 1, 2012:

James M. Casey, LLC
James Casey
1370 Fryston Street
Suite 100
Jacksonville, FL 32259
(571) 246-7249
Jimcasey58@aol.com

What is James M. Casey, LLC? Glad you asked. Because the Florida Times-Union has an article datedyesterday that tells us 25 year FBI veteran James Casey is retiring from the FBI that very day to start his own business: James M. Casey, LLC:

After 25 years of service in the FBI and four as the special agent in charge of the Jacksonville Division, James Casey is leaving to start his own business in investigations.

The 53-year-old Casey steps down from running the Jacksonville operation today. On Thursday, he begins his new gig in the private sector running James M. Casey, LLC, Intelligence/Diligence/Risk, a firm designed to look into corporate and government programs that could involve white collar crime and compliance issues.
Casey acknowledged he'll be a one-man operation at his office that will be located in the EverBank Building, 501 Riverside Ave., in Jacksonville. But he will work with several contractors and specialize in security and investigative services.
Casey leaves a career in law enforcement that included details in 2004 and 2005 with the National Security Council in Washington, where he served under Condoleezza Rice when she was National Security Advisor.
Casey said he's proud of his government work but he's looking forward to the civilian enterprise.

Just in case you were wondering who at the FBI was leaking to Stratfor, the dots are all connected for you: Nobody. Because James Casey is gone from the FBI. Retired. Poof! Worried that they gave him the boot because he was singing like a canary to Stratfor, and they didn't want to launch an internal leak investigation? Well there's a Florida county government site that lists Casey as a bidder on a contract that ended a month ago.
No doubt it's just another coincidence that Wikileaks says it released the first Stratfor email with Burton citing his DoJ intel on Assange on January 29. (Note on 3/2: trying to confirm if this is a Wikileaks typo or if it was released and embargoed on 1/29 jh).
And I'm sure the appearance of the Times-Union article only two days after the big Stratfor email dump is yet another coincidence. It will certainly be a Reader's Digest "was my face red!" moment when reporter Drew Dixson finds out that the subject of his puff piece was the FBI agent sending emails to Stratfor about Wikileaks who was all over the news and he missed it!
Moral of the story: Bradley Manning gets charged with "aiding the enemy" for potentially leaking information that was available on the SIPRNET to hundreds of thousands of people. This guy gets a gold watch and no investigation for potentially leaking the existence of a sealed DoJ indictment of Julian Assange that I imagine almost nobody knew about.

If I were Bradley Manning's lawyer I'd be putting James M. Casey, LLC on my witness list pronto. He seems to be the chatty type.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/03...eaves-fbi/

[Magda Hassan]

tagged: Greece, Greek debt crisis, IMF, IMF aid, IMF connection, June 2009, Stratfor,TA NEA, wikileaks

Wikileaks Revealed Stratfor Knew About Greek Debt Crisis … In Advance

Posted by keeptalkinggreece in EconomyThe economic crisis in Greece and the possible financial support by International Monetary Fund was been monitored by the US think tank Stratfor long before the country officially sought the aid of IMF and before then PM George Papandreou had relevant talks with then IMF Head Dominique Strauss-Kahn in December 2009, shortly after he won the September elections.There revelations came after Wikileaks released over 5 million communication e-mails between Stratfor employees and their informants in several countries. Greek daily TA NEApublished some of these e-mails that definitely raise eyebrows as to why the Stratfor also known as "the shadow CIA"- had such an interest on the IMF aid to Greece. The e-mails also revealed connections betweetn Stratfor and the IMF.

"According to several e-mails that were published by the Greek newspaper TA NEA, the US private intelligence agency Stratfor monitored the moves of Greece in connection with the International Monetary Funds already in June 2009, half a year before the exploratory talks between Papandreou and Strauss-Kahn and ten whole months before the Greek decision to appeal to IMF support mechanism in May 2010.
In an e-mail acquired by Wikileaks, on June 19, 2009 a Stratfor employee responsible for the countries of Central Europe, Baltic and the Balkans sent to colleagues involved in the region of Eurasia a message entitled "Detailed Instructions Europe Tier 3. " In this text message a file was attached giving details of the issues that needed to be paid attention. Specifically for Greece, i was mentioned among other instructions that "we need to know exactly what happens if / when Greece will apply for a loan from the IMF. It is very likely to witness a complete economic collapse in a eurozone country. Please, pay attention to any signs of trading bonds. Greece has a large debt, how they will act it may also depend on what happens with their debt.
Another e-mail sent beginning of November 2011 revelas the close connections between Stratfor and the IMF. In this e-mail, a IMF employee briefed Stratfor that "Greece cash reserves were decreasing and that the country would run out of cash in December (2009).
The e-mail with the instructions was sent in June 2009, that is before EUropean Commission head Jose Immanuel Barroso had revelead his rpediction about the high levels of the Greek deficit. Barroso's report was drafterd a month later. That the Greek deficit was at 10% was revealed at the end of summer 2009." (Source:Ta Nea viaReal.gr and in.gr)

Stratfor had two informants in Greece covered with the code names GR001 and GR101.
http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2012/02...n-advance/

[Magda Hassan]

StratforLeaks: Google Ideas Director Involved in Regime Change'

Google CEO Eric Schmidt gives a speech during the opening ceremony of the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover 5 March 2012. (Photo: REUTERS - Fabian Bimmer)

By: Yazan al-Saadi
Published Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Top Google execs, including the company's CEO and one of Barack Obama's major presidential campaign donors Eric Schmidt, informed the intelligence agency Stratfor about Google's activities and internal communication regarding "regime change" in the Middle East, according to Stratfor emails released by WikiLeaks and obtained by Al-Akhbar. The other source cited was Google's director for security and safety Marty Lev.
The briefings mainly focused on the movements of Jared Cohen, currently the director of Google Ideas, a "think/do-tank" billed as a vehicle for spreading American-style liberal democracy. Cohen was also a former member of US Secretary of State's Policy Planning Staff and former advisor to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton.
Email exchanges, starting February 2011, suggest that Google execs were suspicious that Cohen was coordinating his moves with the White House and cut Cohen's mission short at times for fear he was taking too many risks. Stratfor's vice-president of counter-terrorism Fred Burton, who seemed opposed to Google's alleged covert role in "foaming" uprisings, describes Cohen as a "loose Cannon" whose killing or kidnapping "might be the best thing to happen" to expose Google.
The Cohen Conspiracy
Stratfor's spotlight on Cohen began on 9 February 2012 after Burton forwarded to the secure email list a Foreign Policy article discussing Cohen's move from the State Department to Google Ideas. With this article, Burton noted that Cohen had dinner in Cairo with Wael Ghonim on January 27, 2011 just hours before the Egyptian Google Executive was famously picked up by Egypt's State Security. (doc-id 1122191)
On the same day, Stratfor's staff make reference to a Huffington Post article which highlighted Cohen's role in "delaying the scheduled maintenance on Twitter so the Iranian revolution could keep going" and a Foreign Policy article that noted that Cohen "was a Rhodes scholar, spent time in Iran, [and] hung out in Iraq during the war…". These casual discovers further perked Stratfor's curiosity about Cohen. (doc-id 1629270)
The following day, Burton forwarded a message to the secure email list from "a very good Google source" who claimed that Cohen "[was] off to Gaza next week". Burton added, "Cohen, a Jew, is bound to get himself whacked….Google is not clear if Cohen is operating [with a] State Dept [or] WH [White House] license, or [is] a hippie activist."
Korena Zucha, another senior analyst on the list, queried, "Why hasn't Google cut ties to Cohen yet? Or is Cohen's activity being endorsed by those higher up in the [company] than your contact?"
In turn, Burton replied, "Cohen's rabbi is Eric Schmidt and Obama lackey. My source is trying to find out if the billionaire owners are backing Cohen's efforts for regime change." (doc-id 1111729)
Later on, Burton forwarded information from the "Google source" of Cohen's links in establishing Movements.org. The source added, "A site created to help online organization of groups and individuals to move democracy in stubborn nations. Funded through public-private partnerships." Burton pointed out that the US State Department is the organization's public sponsor." (doc-id 1118344)
Indeed, the State Department, partnering with a number of corporations, was the main sponsor for the 2008 inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements summit in New York City that subsequently established Movements.org. Hillary Clinton endorsed the organization and presented a video message during the second summit held in Mexico City a year later.
On 11 February, Burton wrote to the secure email list that Cohen was still planning to head to Gaza. He added, "The dude is a loose can[n]on. GOOGLE is trying to stop his entry into Gaza now because the dude is like scorched earth. It's unclear to GOOGLE if he's driving without a license, but GOOGLE believes he's on a specific mission of "regime change" on the part of leftist fools inside the WH who are using him for their agendas." (doc-id 1113596)
Throughout this day, the idea proposed by Burton, and seemingly felt by his Google contacts as well, of Cohen and the White House's involvement in the uprisings was actively discussed among the analysts, especially in regards to who would be targeted next. (doc-id 1113965)
By Monday, 14 February 2011, Burton shared intelligence with George Friedman, Stratfor's founder, and Scott Stewart, vice-president of Stratfor's tactical department, from his source in Google that Cohen was ordered not to go to Gaza. Burton's Google source further stated, "Also, thinking I [the unnamed source] may be on the right track about him despite his denials [in reference to Cohen working for the White House/State Department]."
When asked to clarify his sources on Cohen, Burton claimed that they were Marty Lev, Google's director for security and safety, and Eric Schmidt, the current CEO of Google. (doc-id 398679)
A week later, Burton forwarded an internal Google email obtained from a senior Google executive'. This email was seemingly sent by Cohen to the senior Google executive to discuss Cohen's planned trip in March.
In it, Cohen wrote, "I wanted to follow-up and get a sense of your latest thinking on the proposed March trip to UAE, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. The purpose of this trip is to exclusively engage the Iranian community to better understand the challenges faced by Iranians as part of one of our Google Ideas groups on repressive societies. Here is what we are thinking: Drive to Azerbaijan/Iranian border and engage the Iranian communities closer to the border (this is important because we need the Azeri Iranian perspective)."
After reading Cohen's email, Stewart remarked, "Cohen might end up having an accident if he is not careful. This is not child's play."
Burton responded, "GOOGLE is getting WH [White House] and State Dept. support and air cover. In reality, they are doing things the CIA cannot do. But, I agree with you. He's going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose GOOGLE's covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov't can then disavow knowledge and GOOGLE is left holding the shit bag." (doc-id 1121800)
On 10 March 2011, Burton forwarded another message from his senior Google executive' source detailing how Cohen was requested not to travel on his proposed trip. The source explained that Google had concerns over Cohen's "baggage" as a "US State Dept. policy maker, his research and publications on Muslim extremists and youth movements and his presence in Egypt just as the uprising started."The source also stated that Cohen was recommended to "take a lower profile on this specific trip and let time pass before being visible and associated with people known by their states to be active in challenging repressive societies." (doc-id 1164190)
A subsequent message from Burton's source on 22 March 2011 affirmed that Cohen "heeded the advice not to go to Turkey or UAE for those meetings." (doc-id 1133861)
The final email dealing with Cohen was on 30 March 2011.
Here, Burton forwarded to the alpha (secure) email list a response by his source to Burton's question of whether Cohen was playing any role in Libya at the time. The source stated, "Not that I'm aware of. He heeded the advice to avoid Turkey and UAE and didn't go on that trip." (doc-id 1160182)

---

Google Ideas: Politicizing Technology
Certainly, there is more than meets the eye to Cohen and his actions; even his superiors in Google seem to think so.
The belief, chiefly by Burton, that Cohen had seemingly played a role in fermenting the uprisings that toppled Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak underplays, and at times entirely disregards, the ability and agency by local movements in Tunisia and Egypt.
Nevertheless, Google Ideas, which Cohen directs, is a new animal. According to a report by the Financial Times published last July, Google Ideas seems to bond idealistic activist sensibilities with Google's pursuit for continued global expansion - blurring the lines between business and political action. Schmidt and Cohen dub Google Ideas as a "think/do-tank" that aims to tackle political and diplomatic matters through the use of technology.
The first public event for the think/do-tank, in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Tribeca Film Festival, was held last June in Dublin. It gathered around 80 former' extremists, including former Muslim radicals, neo-Nazis, US gang members, and others, in a "Summit Against Violent Extremism". The announcement by Google declared that the summit's aim is "to initiate a global conversation on how best to prevent young people from becoming radicalised and how to de-radicalise others" and that "the ideas generated at the Dublin summit will be included in a study to be published later in the year."
One spin off was the creation of the Against Violent Extremism group, apparently a network for those who attended the Dublin Summit. Beyond merely networking, the group also advertises certain projects that are in need of funding. Notably, much of the projects pertain to the Middle East, including an "Al-Awlaki Counter-Campaign" - Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen of Yemeni origin, was assassinated in September of last year by the US for his alleged al-Qaeda connections.
But the Against Violent Extremism site does not seem to be presently active. The last update for projects in need of funding was made in September and the last announcement regarding the workings of the site was made in October.
More recently, Foreign Policy reported in January that the Brookings Institute, one of the oldest and most influential think-tanks in Washington, DC, named Google Ideas as "the best new think tank established in the last 18 months." Such accolades arguably suggests that Google Ideas is expected to be a major player in the near future.http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/str...e%E2%80%99