Page 1 of 47 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 469

Thread: US Intell planned to destroy Wikileaks

  1. Default US Intell planned to destroy Wikileaks

    Interesting classified document posted at Wikileaks here

    The following is the Exec summary. I've also uploaded the entire thing - belt and braces stuff - admins may need to remove it if the Authorities get heavy, though I guess it has to be regarded as being in the public domain by now. Also, there's always the possibility that we are meant to see certain stuff like this of course.

    (U) Executive Summary
    (S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the US Army. The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US Army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to
    DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations. The leakage of sensitive and classified DoD information also calls attention to the insider threat, when a person or persons motivated by a particular cause or issue wittingly provides information to domestic or foreign personnel or organizations to be published by the news media or on the Internet. Such information could be of value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against US force, both within the United States and abroad.

    (S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out. Wikileaks.org claims that the ?leakers? or ?whistleblowers? of sensitive or classified DoD documents are former US government employees. These claims are highly suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity and protection of the leakers or whistleblowers is one of its primary goals. Referencing of leakers using codenames and providing incorrect employment information, employment status, and other contradictory
    information by Wikileaks.org are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures designed to protect the identity of the current or former insiders who leaked the information. On the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that some of the contradictions in describing leakers could be
    inadvertent OPSEC errors by the authors, contributors, or Wikileaks.org staff personnel with limited experience in protecting the identity of their sources.

    (U) The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes in Asia, theformer Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. To do so, the developers of the Wikileaks.org Web site want to provide a secure forum to where leakers, contributors, or whistleblowers from any country can anonymously post or send documentation and other information that exposes corruption or wrongdoing by governments or corporations. The developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign
    government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic, oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.[2]

    (S//NF) Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site. Persons accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.[3]
    http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
    SECRET//NOFORN

    Page 3 of 32
    (U) Diverse views exist among private persons, legal experts, advocates for open government and accountability, law enforcement, and government officials in the United States and other countries on the stated goals of Wikileaks.org. Some contend that the leaking and posting of information on Wikileaks.org is constitutionally protected free speech, supports open society and open government initiatives, and serves the greater public good in such a manner that outweighs any illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business
    information. Others believe that the Web site or persons associated with Wikileaks.org will face legal challenges in some countries over privacy issues, revealing sensitive or classified government information, or civil lawsuits for posting information that is wrong, false, slanderous, libelous, or malicious in nature. For example, the Wikileaks.org Web site in the
    United States was shutdown on 14 February 2008 for 2 weeks by court order over the publishing of sensitive documents in a case involving charges of money laundering, grand larceny, and tax evasion by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The court case against
    Wikileaks.org was dropped by Julius Bare Bank, the US court order was lifted and the Web site was restored in the United States. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[4]

    (S//NF) The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted
    they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting
    of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.[5]

    (S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of
    employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public.

    (U) Key Judgments
    (S//NF) Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.
    (S//NF) Recent unauthorized release of DoD sensitive and classified documents provide FISS, foreign terrorist groups, insurgents, and other foreign adversaries with potentially actionable information for targeting US forces.

    (S//NF) The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

    Page 4 of 32
    cannot be ruled out. The claim made by Wikileaks.org that former US government employees leaked sensitive and classified information is highly suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity of the whistleblowers or leakers is one of its primary goals.

    (U//FOUO) The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information, misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.

    (U//FOUO) Several countries have blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site and claim the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers or to block access to or remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or other malicious content from the Internet.

    (U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org most likely has other DoD sensitive and classified information in its possession and will continue to post the information to the Wikileaks.org Web site.

    (U//FOUO) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org use trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers. The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Peter Presland

    ".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
    Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'
    "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
    Claud Cockburn


  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Presland View Post
    Interesting classified document posted at Wikileaks here

    The following is the Exec summary. I've also uploaded the entire thing - belt and braces stuff - admins may need to remove it if the Authorities get heavy, though I guess it has to be regarded as being in the public domain by now. Also, there's always the possibility that we are meant to see certain stuff like this of course.

    (U) Executive Summary
    (S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security (INFOSEC) threat to the US Army. The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US Army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to
    DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations. The leakage of sensitive and classified DoD information also calls attention to the insider threat, when a person or persons motivated by a particular cause or issue wittingly provides information to domestic or foreign personnel or organizations to be published by the news media or on the Internet. Such information could be of value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against US force, both within the United States and abroad.

    (S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out. Wikileaks.org claims that the ?leakers? or ?whistleblowers? of sensitive or classified DoD documents are former US government employees. These claims are highly suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity and protection of the leakers or whistleblowers is one of its primary goals. Referencing of leakers using codenames and providing incorrect employment information, employment status, and other contradictory
    information by Wikileaks.org are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures designed to protect the identity of the current or former insiders who leaked the information. On the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that some of the contradictions in describing leakers could be
    inadvertent OPSEC errors by the authors, contributors, or Wikileaks.org staff personnel with limited experience in protecting the identity of their sources.

    (U) The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes in Asia, theformer Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. To do so, the developers of the Wikileaks.org Web site want to provide a secure forum to where leakers, contributors, or whistleblowers from any country can anonymously post or send documentation and other information that exposes corruption or wrongdoing by governments or corporations. The developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign
    government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic, oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.[2]

    (S//NF) Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site. Persons accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.[3]
    http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
    SECRET//NOFORN

    Page 3 of 32
    (U) Diverse views exist among private persons, legal experts, advocates for open government and accountability, law enforcement, and government officials in the United States and other countries on the stated goals of Wikileaks.org. Some contend that the leaking and posting of information on Wikileaks.org is constitutionally protected free speech, supports open society and open government initiatives, and serves the greater public good in such a manner that outweighs any illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business
    information. Others believe that the Web site or persons associated with Wikileaks.org will face legal challenges in some countries over privacy issues, revealing sensitive or classified government information, or civil lawsuits for posting information that is wrong, false, slanderous, libelous, or malicious in nature. For example, the Wikileaks.org Web site in the
    United States was shutdown on 14 February 2008 for 2 weeks by court order over the publishing of sensitive documents in a case involving charges of money laundering, grand larceny, and tax evasion by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The court case against
    Wikileaks.org was dropped by Julius Bare Bank, the US court order was lifted and the Web site was restored in the United States. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[4]

    (S//NF) The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted
    they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting
    of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.[5]

    (S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of
    employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public.

    (U) Key Judgments
    (S//NF) Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.
    (S//NF) Recent unauthorized release of DoD sensitive and classified documents provide FISS, foreign terrorist groups, insurgents, and other foreign adversaries with potentially actionable information for targeting US forces.

    (S//NF) The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

    Page 4 of 32
    cannot be ruled out. The claim made by Wikileaks.org that former US government employees leaked sensitive and classified information is highly suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity of the whistleblowers or leakers is one of its primary goals.

    (U//FOUO) The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information, misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.

    (U//FOUO) Several countries have blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site and claim the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers or to block access to or remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or other malicious content from the Internet.

    (U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org most likely has other DoD sensitive and classified information in its possession and will continue to post the information to the Wikileaks.org Web site.

    (U//FOUO) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org use trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers. The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site.
    WARNING! DANGER! WARNING! DANGER! NOT THE ONLY TARGET! :ridinghorse: MEANT TO HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT - THAT SAID, WOULD -N O T- WANT TO BE ONE OF THOSE BEHIND WIKILEAKS AT THIS TIME - TRULY TARGETS FOR OPS OF ALL KINDS - FROM LETHAL TO THE SITE TO JUST LETHAL!
    Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 03-15-2010 at 03:05 PM.
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  3. #3

    Default

    It seems to me that the strategy to destroy Wikileaks (and any others for that matter) is clearly stated in this document, namely the introduction of fear:

    (S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of
    employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public.
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  4. #4

    Default

    "The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against..." has always been part of the approach used against dissidents and truth-tellers, along with demonization, the use of psychiatric or other imprisonment, or some trumped-up allegation or 'false-flag' crime to insure additional legal costs and the social sequelae (or 2nd-and-3rd generation consequences) of being made a pariah.

    It has even been so, though getting more sophisticated.

    And the kidnappers, torturers, assassins and abusers are allowed free rein and in fact hired for their skills and connections.
    "Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"

  5. #5

    Default

    WikiLeaks Indicating Their Personnel Are Under Physical Surveillance

    March 25th, 2010 There is a WikiLeaks tweet related to a, Pentagon murder-coverup that isnt appearing in their feed, however, it does show up as an individual tweet via the permalink. It states:
    # WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org
    It was posted at 6:43 AM Mar 22nd.
    The other recent tweets are below.
    Via: Twitter:
    # To those worrying about uswere fine, and will issue a suitable riposte shortly. about 6 hours ago via bit.ly
    # We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Dont think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks.
    # We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike.
    # If you know more about the operations against us, contact https://secure.wikileaks.org/
    # One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computers seized.Thats http://www.skup.no
    # Two under State Dep diplomatic cover followed our editor from Iceland to http://skup.no on Thursday.
    # If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible.
    # WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining.
    Thanks, From the Morgue.
    "Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"

  6. #6

    Default

    Very troubling Ed. Thanks for posting.

    Pentagon targets Wiki whistleblowers


    25 March 2010 | 12:37:25 PM | Source: SBS staff and agencies


    Wikileaks editor Julian Assange, an Australian, was allegedly tailed on his way from Iceland by US defence officials. (WikiLeaks.org)


    A small, cash-strapped website that publishes documents governments want kept secret has caught the attention of the Pentagon, which says the site poses a possible threat to US troops.

    A report by the US Army Counterintelligence Center says the whistleblower website WikiLeaks poses a potential danger to safeguarding troops, protecting sensitive information, and "operational security."
    Add your comment

    "WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining," Wikileaks posted on the microblogging site Twitter.
    "If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible," it added, about an hour later.
    Editor followed
    The Twitter feed also said that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange, an Australian, had been tailed on his way from Iceland, and another site employee was detained for 22 hours. Computers were also seized, it said.

    We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks. about 21 hours ago via bit.ly Retweeted by you and 100+ others

    We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike.

    WikiLeaks also urged its Twitter followers to contact them if they knew anything about the 'operations against us'.
    The last Twitter message from the site was published 16 hours after the first ones and said:
    "To those worrying about us--we're fine, and will issue a suitable riposte shortly.
    Military analysis published

    A military analysis appeared this week on the WikiLeaks website, the latest document posted on the site that seeks to uncover information governments and companies try to keep from public view.

    US Army spokesman Gary Tallman confirmed the report on the website was "genuine."

    The report expresses concern that the website posted 2,000 pages of documents with precise details of military equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan from April 2007, describing them as "nearly the entire order of battle."

    Tallman said that information has a "shelf life" and has become outdated.

    "The information in the review is now dated to the point where it no longer presents the same national security concerns as it did when the report was generated," he told AFP.
    Aim to expose contributors

    The 2008 army report suggests trying to expose those who leak documents WikiLeaks as a way of undermining the website.
    Sites such as WikiLeaks "use trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers," it said.

    "The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site."

    Tallman said the military seeks to safeguard sensitive information and is focused on preventing leaks that could endanger US forces or national security.

    He said that "anyone who knowingly provides information marked as classified to anyone or an organization without a proper clearance or need to know is a serious matter, and subject to potential penalties under the law."
    Temporary shutdown

    WikiLeaks, run by Sunshine Press, describes itself as a "non-profit organization funded by human rights campaigners, investigative journalists, technologists and the general public."

    The site, which has to rely in part on public contributions to stay afloat, had to temporarily shut down earlier this year because of financial difficulties.

    WikiLeaks says it has published more than one million documents from dissident communities and anonymous sources around the world about government and corporate corruption, human rights violations and other subjects.

    The Swiss bank Julius Baer & Company LTD earlier this month dropped a legal attempt to force Wikileaks to shut down.

    A US federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the website's postings of leaked documents is protected as free speech by the US Constitution.

    Julius Baer went after Wikileaks in court after the website posted copies of internal documents indicating the company helped customers launder money illegally through the Cayman Islands.
    Baer denied the accusations.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  7. #7

    Default

    CIA, State Department Apparently Acting on Plan to Destroy Wikileaks

    By BARRETT BROWN
    The rise of the internet brings the greatest challenge yet to the globes existing centers of power, and those associated with those centers of power are at least partially aware of this. China has reacted with the construction of its second Great Wall, the Russian government appears to have shut down a website used to organize a recent spate of ad hoc protests, and there have been various murmurs by such degenerate political figures as Hugo Chavez to the effect that the internets anarchic nature runs contrary to their own preferred schematic for humanity, one which is reliant on such people as themselves (I am paraphrasing for accuracy by implication, of course).
    Among the institutions that have arisen as of late that challenge secrecy, and thus the status quo, is Wikileaks, which has provided a tremendous service to humanity by serving as a clearinghouse by which previously-secret information may be disseminated to the public, which may then decide for itself whether the more traditional institutions that operate in its name ought to be permitted to continue to do so. It has produced a great number of important scoops over the past few years, and it appears to be preparing for yet another. It also appears to be under present attack by portions of the U.S. intelligence community at this very moment.
    As noted by a related blog[Down due to excessive traffic, changed link to Twitter feed itself, 6:11 EST], the Wikileaks Twitter feed produced a number of disturbing messages last night:
    WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org
    WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining
    If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible.
    Two under State Dep diplomatic cover followed our editor from Iceland to http://skup.no on Thursday.
    One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computers seized.Thats http://www.skup.no
    We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike video is now being discussed at the highest levels of US command.
    We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike.
    We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Dont think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks.
    These messages come a few days after Wikileaks produced what appears to be evidence that portions of the U.S. intelligence and diplomatic communities have floated the idea of discrediting this outlet by way of methods similar to those employed in the CIAs COINTELPRO operations of the late 60s.
    If this is actually occurring, it is the most important story of the year thus far. Depending on who you are, though, you may not take it seriously. I will note, and you as a reader may verify for yourself, that nearly every single individual involved in matters of information freedom takes this extraordinarily seriously, and that this incident will be the focus of all of them no matter whether or not the defunct media decides to grace it with a passing mention (and thereby legitimize the story in the eyes of those who deem matters important on the basis of whether they are being discussed by big shiny news outlets run by producers who care only for handbags). I will have more to relate on that particular subject later today after I hear back from certain individuals with more information on this incident and the specific events that may have prompted it.
    Update
    Some important links:
    Wikileaks Twitter Feed This hasnt been updated for some 14 hours as of 2:00 pm EST. Update 9:04 EST Updated with message to the effect that everyones fine, see below.
    Update 2:29 EST
    Its worth noting that German police last year raided the home of a certain individual who owned that nations version of the Wikileaks domain name. Again, national governments take Wikileaks seriously, and so should you.
    Update 2:40 EST
    The New York Times deserves credit for having reported on the U.S. intel communitys plan to discredit Wikileaks a few days ago. More to the point, this should help to convince those who may be coming to this late to the game that, yes, this is legitimate. Our nations intelligence service has targeted this website for destruction, and is most likely carrying out some variant on the plan at this very moment.
    Update 3:23 EST
    Not a word of this on Memeorandum or any of the major U.S. media outlets. This is exactly why we need more and better institutions designed with improved information flow in mind. Consider e-mailing me for info about Project PM at barriticus@gmail.com. Consider donating to Wikileaks. Consider getting in touch with a competent blogger and letting them know about this story.
    Update 3:42 EST
    If you have been directed to this page and are reading me for the first time, allow me to note that I am not in the habit of writing news updates of the breathless sort and do not specialize in these sorts of stories. I am also not the credulous type. I write for Skeptic and have a column for the Skeptical Inquirer, which is to say that I have earned some skeptic street cred over the years and am cashing those chips in today. If I take the position that a consortium of U.S. intel agencies are taking actions against an institution dedicated to transparency, it is because I have determined that this very thing is happening, and if I have made such a determination, it is only because the totality of the evidence points to such a thing as being not only probable, but obvious. Having said that, the evidence is here for all to see, and to act on.
    Any assault on the ability of individuals to obtain the information necessary to ensure humanitys collective well-being is an assault on humanity itself and ought to be regarded as such.


    Update 4:29 EST
    Wikileaks Twitter feed finally updates with the following message: To those worrying about uswere fine, and will issue a suitable riposte shortly.
    Update 4:37 EST
    Wikileaks is planning on releasing segments or at least stills from the video in question on April 5th. Apparently, it is a decrypted video displaying some sort of massacre. Insomuch as that the video was encrypted in the first place, it was likely stolen/leaked from some government military agency; it is possible that what worries the agency in question is not the contents, but the fact that an encryption schematic in use by said agency has been broken by people in the business of distributing secrets.
    Update 5:30 EST
    To clarify, Wikileaks has previously claimed that the video in question shows the deliberate murder of journalists and civilians, and that the video comes from some branch of the U.S. military. Obviously, there a number of conclusions one could draw from this regarding specifics and thus the full extent of the potential scandal; Im trying to get in touch with those close to the matter before speculating further.
    Update, 6:00 EST
    This recent post by Scott Horton of Harpers provides a good rundown of the context regarding Wikileaks, secrecy, and the mindset that defines too many U.S. government agencies:
    What does the Pentagon have in common with North Korea, China, Zimbabwe, and a number of private Swiss banks? They all feel threatened by WikiLeaks, the Internet service that offers whistleblowers an opportunity to publish documents that expose corruption and wrongdoing by state and private actors.
    Update 8:43 EST
    Based on all available information, I would guess that the video clip depicts a Predator strike gone wrong one that inadvertently killed a few journalists and that certain officials took steps to minimize knowledge of the incident, to put it cutely. Again, this is simply an estimation.
    Update 9:09 EST
    A quote from the DoD report published on the 15th that deserves particular emphasis:
    The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage, or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site.
    Update 9:38 EST
    Another quote from the DoD report thats worth emphasizing for different reasons:
    The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have
    the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these
    countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.
    Update 10:08 EST
    They must indeed be okay insomuch as that theyre now posting links to Gawker articles about themselves and analysis about why China hates them.
    Update 11:08 EST
    The Modern Media Initiative, with which Wikileaks is involved, probably merits more attention from those who agree that Icelands possible role as a global safe haven for information freedom is a crucial response to the inevitable attempts that will be made to encroach upon humanitys fundamentally improved access to information.


    With a tip of the cap to the Rigorous Intuition forum,
    found here (author's bio to right at link)
    http://trueslant.com/barrettbrown/20...roy-wikileaks/
    "Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"

  8. #8

    Default

    WikiLeaks Statement on Recent Events

    March 26th, 2010 Via: WikiLeaks:
    EDITORIAL:U.S. must stop spying on WikiLeaks
    Fri Mar 26 08:44:46 UTC 2010
    Over the last few years, WikiLeaks has been the subject of hostile acts by security organizations. In the developing world, these range from the appalling assassination of two related human rights lawyers in Nairobi last March (an armed attack on my compound there in 2007 is still unattributed) to an unsuccessful mass attack by Chinese computers on our servers in Stockholm, after we published photos of murders in Tibet. In the West this has ranged from the overt, the head of Germanys foreign intelligence service, the BND, threatening to prosecute us unless we removed a report on CIA activity in Kosovo, to the covert, to an ambush by a James Bond character in a Luxembourg car park, an event that ended with a mere we think it would be in your interest to.
    Developing world violence aside, weve become used to the level of security service interest in us and have established procedures to ignore that interest.
    But the increase in surveillance activities this last month, in a time when we are barely publishing due to fundraising, are excessive. Some of the new interest is related to a film exposing a U.S. massacre we will release at the U.S. National Press Club on April 5.
    The spying includes attempted covert following, photographng, filming and the overt detention & questioning of a WikiLeaks volunteer in Iceland on Monday night.
    I, and others were in Iceland to advise Icelandic parliamentarians on the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a new package of laws designed to protect investigative journalists and internet services from spying and censorship. As such, the spying has an extra poignancy.
    The possible triggers:
    * our ongoing work on a classified film revealing civilian casualties occurring under the command of the U.S, general, David Petraeus.
    * our release of a classified 32 page US intelligence report on how to fatally marginalize WikiLeaks (expose our sources, destroy our reputation for integrity, hack us).
    * our release of a classified cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik reporting on contact between the U.S. and the U.K. over billions of euros in claimed loan guarantees.
    * pending releases related to the collapse of the Icelandic banks and Icelandic oligarchs.

    We have discovered half a dozen attempts at covert surveillance in Reykjavik both by native English speakers and Icelanders. On the occasions where these individuals were approached, they ran away. One had marked police equipment and the license plates for another suspicious vehicle track back to the Icelandic private VIP bodyguard firm Terr. What does that mean? We dont know. But as you will see, other events are clear.
    U.S. sources told Icelandic state medias deputy head of news, that the State Department was aggressively investigating a leak from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik. I was seen at a private U.S Embassy party at the Ambassadors residence, late last year and it is known I had contact with Embassay staff, after.
    On Thursday March 18, 2010, I took the 2.15 PM flight out of Reykjavik to Copenhagenon the way to speak at the SKUP investigative journalism conference in Norway. After receiving a tip, we obtained airline records for the flght concerned. Two individuals, recorded as brandishing diplomatic credentials checked in for my flight at 12:03 and 12:06 under the name of US State Department. The two are not recorded as having any luggage.
    Iceland doesnt have a separate security service. It folds its intelligence function into its police forces, leading to an uneasy overlap of policing and intelligence functions and values.
    On Monday 22, March, at approximately 8.30pm, a WikiLeaks volunteer, a minor, was detained by Icelandic police on a wholly insignificant matter. Police then took the opportunity to hold the youth over night, without chargea highly unusual act in Iceland. The next day, during the course of interrogation, the volunteer was shown covert photos of me outside the Reykjavik restaurant Icelandic Fish & Chips, where a WikiLeaks production meeting took place on Wednesday March 17the day before individuals operating under the name of the U.S. State Department boarded my flight to Copenhagen.
    Our production meeting used a discreet, closed, backroom, because we were working on the analysis of a classified U.S. military video showing civilian kills by U.S. pilots. During the interrogation, a specific reference was made by police to the videowhich could not have been understood from that days exterior surveillance alone. Another specific reference was made to important, but unnamed Icelandic figures. References were also made to the names of two senior journalists at the production meeting.
    Who are the Icelandic security services loyal to in their values? The new government of April 2009, the old pro-Iraq war government of the Independence party, or perhaps to their personal relationships with peers from another country who have them on a permanment intelligence information drip?
    Only a few years ago, Icelandic airspace was used for CIA rendition flights. Why did the CIA think that this was acceptable? In a classified U.S. profile on the former Icelandic Ambassador to the United States, obtained by WikiLeaks, the Ambassador is praised for helping to quell publicity of the CIAs activities.
    Often when a bold new government arises, bureaucratic institutions remain loyal to the old regime and it can take time to change the guard. Former regime loyalists must be discovered, dissuaded and removed. But for the security services, that first vital step, discovery, is awry. Congenitally scared of the light, such services hide their activities; if it is not known what security services are doing, then it is surely impossible to know who they are doing it for.
    Our plans to release the video on April 5 proceed.
    We have asked relevant authorities in the Unites States and Iceland to explain. If these countries are to be treated as legitmate states, they need to start obeying the rule of law. Now.
    Julian Assange (editor@wikileaks.org)
    "Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"

  9. #9

    Default

    The possible triggers:
    * our ongoing work on a classified film revealing civilian casualties occurring under the command of the U.S, general, David Petraeus.
    * our release of a classified 32 page US intelligence report on how to fatally marginalize WikiLeaks (expose our sources, destroy our reputation for integrity, hack us).
    * our release of a classified cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik reporting on contact between the U.S. and the U.K. over billions of euros in claimed loan guarantees.
    * pending releases related to the collapse of the Icelandic banks and Icelandic oligarchs.

    (snip)

    Our production meeting used a discreet, closed, backroom, because we were working on the analysis of a classified U.S. military video showing civilian kills by U.S. pilots.
    It's clear from the descriptions of the extent of the surveillance and detention activities that WikiLeaks has some information which They (in the Pynchonian sense) do not want to become public knowledge.

    However, from the description of the information disclosed during interrogation, Icelandic police/spooks appear to have access to a lot of surveillance material.

    Are Icelandic police/spooks running the operation? Or being used by the real powers here, who remain in the shadows?

    My instinct is the latter.
    "It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
    "Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
    "They are in Love. Fuck the War."

    Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

    "Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
    The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war

  10. #10

    Default

    I concur. Iceland is better known for it Cod and salted Herring, not for its ability in intelligence collecting. It's being fed, and the question is who is feeding it?

    My guess would be one of the UKUSA nations - or at least I would argue that the intelligence product originated there - and then found it's way through third parties to Iceland.
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •