In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a data bank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the other hand to discredit the US administration. With regard to financial information, the release of data pertaining to a particular bank instigated via Wikileaks by a rival financial institution, could potentially be used to trigger the collapse or bankrutpcy of the targeted financial institution. All the Wiki-facts are selectively redacted, they are then “analyzed” and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites. While the numerous pieces of information contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks data bank. The public will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets. A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded as a “reliable source”, when in fact what is presented in the pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the truth.
Do we know “who is behind Wikileaks”?
I am getting emails from readers on an almost daily basis now, pointing me to the article by by Michel Chossudovsky “Who is Behind Wikileaks?” This is a very good article indeed, and I highly recommend its reading. But please, let me point out the key segment of this article (emphasis added):
Ok. So what does Chossudovsky say?
1. The data dump itself is real
2. The corporate media selectively uses it
3. The general public only sees what the corporate media gives it
I agree with all of the above. But notice that none of that says anything about some mysterious “who” who is “behind” Wikileaks. None of that makes any claims about Assange himself. In fact, Chossudovsky ends his article with the words: we should also stand firm in preventing the prosecution of Julian Assange in the US.
Many readers are pointing out that Assange is a self-enamored character who likes to ridicule the 9-11 Truth movement. That is possibly quite true, but that is also highly irrelevant. These are most definitely not the reasons why folks like Ron Paul, Vladimir Putin, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, or Evo Morales are expressing their support for him. Nor I these the reasons why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decries the leaks as ‘US propaganda’.
And I would like to lay to rest once and for all (hopefully!) two of the worst of all arguments of the Wiki-doubters: that a) the leaks are parroting the Zionist propaganda lies and b) that they don’t contain anything really ‘hot’.
The first one is a no-brainer: these leaks come from the SIPRNet, that is a *low* level classified network. Yes, information like ‘confidential’ and ‘secret’ is in reality of *low* level. In fact, 2,5-3 million people have access to this network. Now ask yourself a simple question: you are a US government employee with a security clearance, and you are about to contribute an entry to a network which is read by millions of other US government employees, including your bosses. Do you really want to criticize Israel in any way? Do you even want to disagree with the Zionist propaganda line? Of course not! That would be a career ending mistake.
The second argument is only made by those who never had a security clearance. Anybody with real access to highly classified documents will tell you that ‘confidential’ and ‘secret’ are really riff-raff, stuff which really could be classified as ‘for official use only’, but which gets the higher level to avoid embarrassment. This is also why the leaks have mostly only caused embarrassment to Uncle Sam: because by definition anything ‘hotter’ would be classified much higher and restricted to a dramatically lower number of people, only on a need to know basis. Think about it – stuff given out to several million folks is, by definition, not a ‘need to know’ and therefore it cannot be truly ‘hot’.
As somebody how did have a high level security clearance in the past, I can assure you that these leaks look *exactly* like the kind of mildly classified chatter which you would expect on this level of classification.
Back to the original argument now. Point one: there is absolutely no reason to doubt that the person who is behind the data dump to Wikileaks is Bradley Manning or somebody else from the several million of people who had access to SIPRNet. Point two: all Assange and Wikileaks did is manage the modalities of release of this data dump. I personally think that they did not do a very good job of it (I would have dumped the full thing in one batch), but there is no reason to suspect that Assange or his friends are puppets of some kind of shadowy intelligence agency. Point three: Assange himself, his character and his views simply do not matter and saying that there is no reason to suspect Assange is not some plant does not entail endorsing his personality, his views or, in fact, his use (or not) of condoms. Point four: the same goes for Wikileaks as an organization which matters only to the degree that it is a conduit for the release of the information contained in the data dump. As I said, I am less then thrilled by how they are doing it all, but the fact that I would have chosen a different strategy does not mean that they are all Mossad agents.
The really bad thing in this entire debate about who or what is behind Wikileaks is that it obfuscates the real issue, and that issue is real: the US government is using all its powers to censor the Internet and, so far, it has had an appalling degree of success. Worse, it is quite clear that Bradely Manning’s basic human rights are being horribly violated and there is a non-trivial possibility that the same might happen to Julian Assange should he be extradited to the ‘Imperial Homeland’.
Folks like the EFF or Ron Paul get it right: the real issue here is the nature of the US government and the freedom of the Internet. The rest is, frankly, counter productive distraction.
YMMV, of course.
The Saker
you are a US government employee with a security clearance, and you are about to contribute an entry to a network which is read by millions of other US government employees, including your bosses. Do you really want to criticize Israel in any way?
In my opinion, this is one of the worst arguments pro-Wikileaks defenders use to rationalize the lack of content critical of Israel in the Wikileaks dump. To believe this, we would have to believe the US government spends over $60 billion a year on intelligence just to have analysts and diplomats tell their superiors what they want to hear, rather than the cold facts. Such a policy would leave the US completely hamstrung in dealing with any foreign policy matter, fair or foul. The State Department is as much in the intelligence and information-gathering business as the CIA, NSA etc, and no intelligence agency worthy of the name operates like this.
This idea is also belied by the fact that diplomats and government officals often go off message in public from official propaganda, even preparing studies that contradict the official party line. such as the CIA’s study that there were was no evidence WMDs found in Iraq as suggested by Wikileaks. The idea that government officials would be more reticent with each other in private communications than they are in public is highly doubtful, and not backed by evidence.
If it is true we can expect nothing about Israel in official documents that might be perceived as career-threatening, then we should expect a similar reticence with regard to purely US matters, in which case the Wikileaks dump, if real, would be largely useless.
You are correct in saying that Assange’s character proves nothing about Wikileaks, just as Wikileaks supporters’ assertions about the alleged motives and character of hundreds of diplomats over decades proves nothing. But to say his character, motivations and the sources of his support are all irrelevant is wrong. All these things have direct bearing on the credibility of Wikileaks in the absence of hard evidence whether Wikileaks is a scam or not, which we may never know. It’s what we have to go on right now and much of what Assange has said coupled with Netanyahu’s confident remarks and the absence of material critical of Israel is rightly considered by many to be highly suspect.
The reality is no one, not the doubters or the believers, is in a position to truly know what Wikileaks is or isn’t. But so far, there are certain indisputable facts:
1. Wikileaks has published nothing that seriously embarasses the US.
2. Wikileaks has published nothing that seriously embarasses Israel.
3. Wikileaks has published a lot of pro-US and pro-Israel propganda.
4. Wikileaks has published documents that seriously undermine the unity of the Muslim world and other US/Israeli enemies.
5. The government has failed to eliminate Wikileaks servers though it has the power to do so.
6. The US media is not in the business of disseminating truth.
part 1 0f 2
part 2 of 2
The usual response of government when caught with its pants down is to deny everything. Instead, the US government and media have gone overboard in promoting Wikileaks as something real. It would be just as easy for them to imply the documents are fake and produced by foreign agencies with an agenda as it is us for us wild-eyed conspiracy theorists to do so. How hard would it be for the US to denounce Julian Assange as an Iranian agent?
Based on these facts, what Wikileaks appears to be on the surface is neocon/Zionist propaganda. To see it as something else, you have to engage in a lot of speculation, sophistry and handwaving, none of which is based on hard facts. The media may spin the material, diplomats may be sycophants who never speak truth to each other, and Assange may be an asshole with a conscience, but these things remain to be proven.
In the meantime, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If Wikileaks supporters want to make the case Wikileaks is really a peace elephant being whittled down to duck-like characteristics by media distortion, that needs to be proven, and not just asserted.
@Sean: Frankly, reading your latest comments I began to wonder whether you had read my post at all. But then I realized that no matter what I would write, you would dismiss it as ‘a lot of speculation, sophistry and handwaving’. Considering that you also dismissed McGovern and Porter comments as ‘general purpose apologetics based on meaningless sophistry (…) handwaving and illogical dismissals’ I consider myself in good company:-) Forgive me for saying that, but that is the old trick of “if you don’t have the facts, bang on the table”.
You are more then welcome to keep on banging, but you will forgive me for not re-stating arguments I already made in the original post. Should those be of interest to you, you can read them for yourself in the original post.
Cheers!
Forgive me, but you seem to be the one table banging here. When you say that there is no material on Israel because diplomats fear discussing Israel among their colleagues, this may be true, but it is speculation, not fact. Is it wrong for me to point out you offered no evidence whatsoever to support this view? Is it wrong for me to make an argument why I think this is an incorrect view? Or are we to accept this as Gospel because you, McGovern or Porter are in “good company” in believing it?
Neither you or I know the truth here, but I have tried to acknowledge this fact, and been clear about the fact that my opinion is also speculation, although speculation based on tangible evidence. I feel I have been fair to you in this debate, and I have not idly dismissed or mischaracterized your opinions, or anyone else’s. In each case I have given you the courtesy of a reasoned response without attacking your character or motivations. Show me where I have failed to do so and I’ll be happy to apologize. Accusing me of “table banging,” failing to read your posts or once again being immune to changing my opinions amounts to hand-waving and ad hominem.
For the record, I did read your post as should be obvious by the fact i responded to them point by point. If I mischaracterized something your wrote point it out to me.
I think you have cherry picked a small section of the article to support your view while neglecting what the bulk of the article reveals about Wikileaks.
Things the article references and you overlooked are Assanges connections and the mass media affiliates he associated with, Wikileaks staff and mysterious origins of private financing and what its original stated agenda is to target governments in Eurasia (China, Russia and Central Asia).