Wikileaks Shenanigans

[Mr. Blonde]

Wikileaks (wiki page), for those that don't know, is a website that receives and exposes anonymous government, religious and official data to the public. It's currently in quite a bit of trouble over:

The State Department/CIA has been tailing and detaining those related to Wikileaks over the planned April 5th leak of a decrypted video depicting an airstrike on civilians and journalists.

CNN I report/Source

Pretty nuts if you follow their Twitter Page:

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. Computer's seized.That's SKUP - Stiftelsen for en Kritisk og Undersøkende Presse

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

[Mr. Blonde]

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 Germany's 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, we've 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 don't know. But as you will see, other events are clear.

U.S. sources told Icelandic state media's 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 Ambassador's 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 Copenhagen--on 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 doesn't 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 charge--a 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 17--the 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 video---which could not have been understood from that day's 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 CIA's 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)

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Interesting. Too bad it will never make actual news sources, people would rather hear about celebrity affairs and other nonsense.

[Ugly Bastard]

tl;dr

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Why is it that all these conspiracy theories are so long winded an involve looong utube vidoes? Could it be they're after attention?

Just a theory!

[Mr. Blonde]

wikileaks is pretty far from being simple conspiracy theorists, they actually get shit done.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Why are they waiting until April 5th?

[Mr. Blonde]

I don't know why they're waiting, but if I had to say honestly, probably for publicity. They've recently had some major funding problems and they likely realized that such a big story, drawn out, would get them more media attention (as it has: WikiLeaks to release video of civilians, journalists being murdered in airstrike | Raw Story ) and subsequently more funding. Sad to admit the possibility of it, but probably true.

It also just came to me the possibility that all of this government interference could just be a story to gain popularity as well. We'll see I guess.

YouTube- War on whistleblower: CIA spies on WikiLeaks for 'Pentagon murder cover-up' exposure?

YouTube- War on whistleblower: CIA spies on WikiLeaks for 'Pentagon murder cover-up' exposure?

Edit: from the comments i'm seeing online it seems everyone else is saying the same thing about their motive for waiting: to build up media suspense. While it might seem like a jack move for this kind of organization, they really do need funding and if they want to exist at all in the future (and they have done great things) they simply need more money.

[Dent]

The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters
By Glenn Greenwald
BBC's "The Culture Show"
Julian Assange, editor of WikiLeaks.

A newly leaked CIA report prepared earlier this month (.pdf) analyzes how the U.S. Government can best manipulate public opinion in Germany and France -- in order to ensure that those countries continue to fight in Afghanistan. The Report celebrates the fact that the governments of those two nations continue to fight the war in defiance of overwhelming public opinion which opposes it -- so much for all the recent veneration of "consent of the governed" -- and it notes that this is possible due to lack of interest among their citizenry: "Public Apathy Enables Leaders to Ignore Voters," proclaims the title of one section.

But the Report also cites the "fall of the Dutch Government over its troop commitment to Afghanistan" and worries that -- particularly if the "bloody summer in Afghanistan" that many predict takes place -- what happened to the Dutch will spread as a result of the "fragility of European support" for the war. As the truly creepy Report title puts it, the CIA's concern is: "Why Counting on Apathy May Not Be Enough":

The Report seeks to provide a back-up plan for "counting on apathy," and provides ways that the U.S. Government can manipulate public opinion in these foreign countries. It explains that French sympathy for Afghan refugees means that exploiting Afghan women as pro-war messengers would be effective, while Germans would be more vulnerable to a fear-mongering campaign (failure in Afghanistan means the Terrorists will get you). The Report highlights the unique ability of Barack Obama to sell war to European populations (click on images to enlarge):

It's both interesting and revealing that the CIA sees Obama as a valuable asset in putting a pretty face on our wars in the eyes of foreign populations. It is odious -- though, of course, completely unsurprising -- that the CIA plots ways to manipulate public opinion in foreign countries in order to sustain support for our wars. Now that this is a Democratic administration doing this and a Democratic war at issue, I doubt many people will object to any of this. But what is worth noting is how and why this classified Report was made publicly available: because it was leaked to and then posted by WikiLeaks.org, the site run by the non-profit group Sunshine Press, that is devoted to exposing suppressed government and corporate corruption by publicizing many of their most closely guarded secrets.

* * * * *

I spoke this morning at length with Julian Assange, the Australian citizen who is WikiLeaks' Editor, regarding the increasingly aggressive war being waged against WikiLeaks by numerous government agencies, including the Pentagon. Over the past several years, WikiLeaks -- which aptly calls itself "the intelligence agency of the people" -- has obtained and then published a wide array of secret, incriminating documents (similar to this CIA Report) that expose the activities of numerous governments and corporations. Among many others, they posted the Standard Operating Manual for Guantanamo, documents showing how corrupt offshore loans precipitated the economic collapse in Iceland, the notorious emails between climate scientists, documents showing toxic dumping off the coast of Africa, and many others. They have recently come into possession of classified videos relating to civilian causalities under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, as well as documentation relating to civilian-slaughtering airstrikes in Afghanistan which the U.S. military had agreed to release, only to change their mind.

All of this has made WikiLeaks an increasingly hated target of numerous government and economic elites around the world, including the U.S. Government. As The New York Times put it last week: "To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information and documents that governments and corporations around the world would prefer to keep secret." In 2008, the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Center prepared a secret report -- obtained and posted by WikiLeaks -- devoted to this website and detailing, in a section entitled "Is it Free Speech or Illegal Speech?", ways it would seek to destroy the organization. It discusses the possibility that, for some governments, not merely contributing to WikiLeaks, but "even accessing the website itself is a crime," and outlines its proposal for WikiLeaks' destruction as follows (click on images to enlarge):

As the Pentagon report put it: "the governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam and Zimbabwe" have all sought to block access to or otherwise impede the operations of WikiLeaks, and the U.S. Government now joins that illustrious list of transparency-loving countries in targeting them.

It's not difficult to understand why the Pentagon wants to destroy WikiLeaks. Here's how the Pentagon's report describes some of the disclosures for which they are responsible:

The Pentagon report also claims that WikiLeaks has disclosed documents that could expose U.S. military plans in Afghanistan and Iraq and endanger the military mission, though its discussion is purely hypothetical and no specifics are provided. Instead, the bulk of the Pentagon report focuses on documents which embarrass the U.S. Government: information which, as they put it, "could be manipulated to provide biased news reports or be used for conducting propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, perception management, or influence operations against the U.S. Army by a variety of domestic and foreign actors." In other words, the Pentagon is furious that this exposing of its secrets might enable others to engage in exactly the type of "perception management" which the aforementioned CIA Report proposes the U.S. do with regard to the citizenry of our allied countries.

All of this is based in the same rationale invoked by President Obama and the Democratic Congress when they re-wrote the Freedom of Information Act last year in order to suppress America's torture photos. It's the same rationale used by all governments to conceal evidence of their wrongdoing: we need to suppress our activities for your own good. WikiLeaks is devoted to subverting that mentality and, relatively speaking, has been quite successful in doing so.

For that reason, numerous governments and private groups would like to see them destroyed. Corporations have sued to have the site shut down. And in addition to this 2008 Pentagon report, WikiLeaks has acquired, though not yet posted, other U.S. Government classified reports on its activities, including a U.S. Marine Intelligence Report and an analysis prepared by the U.S. military base in Germany, both of which speak of WikiLeaks as a threat. Moreover, the FBI has refused to provide any information about its investigations and other activities aimed at WikiLeaks, citing, in response to FOIA requests, national security and other excuses for concealing it.

* * * * *

In my interview this morning with Assange, he described multiple incidents that clearly signal a recent escalation of surveillance and other forms of harassment directed at WikiLeaks. Many of those events are detailed in an Editorial they just published, which, he explained, was part of an effort to publicize what is being done to them in order to provide some safety and buffer. A good summary of those events is provided by Gawker. As but one disturbing incident: a volunteer, a minor, who works with WikiLeaks was detained in Iceland last week and questioned extensively about an incriminating video WikiLeaks possesses relating to the actions of the U.S. military. During the course of the interrogation, the WikiLeaks volunteer was not only asked questions about the video based on non-public knowledge about its contents (i.e., information which only the U.S. military would have), but was also shown surveillance photos of Assange exiting a recent WikiLeaks meeting regarding the imminent posting of documents concerning the Pentagon.

That WikiLeaks is being targeted by the U.S. Government for surveillance and disruption is beyond doubt. And it underscores how vital their work is and why it's such a threat.

WikiLeaks editors, including Assagne, have spent substantial time of late in Iceland because there is a pending bill in that country's Parliament that would provide meaningful whistle blower protection for what they do, far greater than exists anywhere else. Why is Iceland a leading candidate to do that? Because, last year, that nation suffered full-scale economic collapse. It was then revealed that numerous nefarious causes (corrupt loans, off-shore transactions, concealed warning signs) were hidden completely from the public and even from policy-makers, preventing detection and avoidance. Worse, most of Iceland's institutions -- from its media to its legislative and regulatory bodies -- completely failed to penetrate this wall of secrecy, allowing this corruption to fester until it brought about full-scale financial ruin. As a result, Iceland has become very receptive to the fact that the type of investigative exposure provided by WikiLeaks is a vital national good, and there is real political will to provide it with substantial protections.

If that doesn't sound familiar to Americans, it should. At exactly the time when U.S. government secrecy is at an all-time high, the institutions ostensibly responsible for investigation, oversight and exposure have failed. The American media are largely co-opted, and their few remaining vestiges of real investigative journalism are crippled by financial constraints. The U.S. Congress is almost entirely impotent at providing meaningful oversight and is, in any event, controlled by the factions that maintain virtually complete secrecy. As I've documented before, some alternative means of investigative journalism have arisen -- such as the ACLU's tenacious FOIA litigations to pry documents showing "War on Terror" abuses and the reams of bloggers who sort through, analyze and publicize them -- but that's no match for the vast secrecy powers of the government and private corporations.

The need for independent leaks and whistle-blowing exposures is particularly acute now because, at exactly the same time that investigative journalism has collapsed, public and private efforts to manipulate public opinion have proliferated. This is exemplified by the type of public opinion management campaign detailed by the above-referenced CIA Report, the Pentagon's TV propaganda program exposed in 2008, and the ways in which private interests covertly pay and control supposedly "independent political commentators" to participate in our public debates and shape public opinion.

Last month, I was on a panel at the New School's Conference on how information is controlled in a democracy, and also on the panel were Daniel Ellsberg, who risked his liberty to leak the Pentagon Papers, and The New York Times' David Barstow, who won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the Pentagon's propaganda program. Ellsberg described how massive is the apparatus of secrecy in the National Security State, and Barstow made the vital point -- which I summarized in the clip below when speaking later that day at NYU Law School -- that the public and private means for manipulating public opinion are rapidly increasing at exactly the same time that checks on secrecy (such as investigative journalism) are vanishing:

Aside from the handful of organizations (the ACLU, the NYT) with the resources and will to engage in protracted FOIA litigations against the government, one of the last avenues to uncover government and other elite secrets are whistle blowers and organizations that enable them. WikiLeaks is one of the world's most effective such groups, and it's thus no surprise that they're under such sustained attacks.

This is how Assange put it to me this morning in explaining why he believes his organization's activities are so vital and why he's willing to make himself a target in order to do it:

This information has reform potential. And the information which is concealed or suppressed is concealed or suppressed because the people who know it best understand that it has the ability to reform. So they engage in work to prevent that reform . . . .

There are reasons I do it that have to do with wanting to reform civilization, and selectively targeting information will do that -- understanding that quality information is what every decision is based on, and all the decisions taken together is what "civilization" is, so if you want to improve civilization, you have to remove some of the basic constraints, which is the quality of information that civilization has at its disposal to make decisions. Of course, there's a personal psychology to it, that I enjoy crushing bastards, I like a good challenge, so do a lot of the other people involved in WikiLeaks. We like the challenge.

The public and private organizations most eager to maintain complete secrecy around what they do -- including numerous U.S. military and intelligence agencies -- are obviously threatened by WikiLeaks' activities, which is why they seek to harass and cripple them. There are numerous ways one can support WikiLeaks -- donations, volunteer work, research, legal and technical assistance -- and that can be done through their site. There aren't many groups more besieged, or doing more important work, than they.

[Mr. Blonde]

The video comes out:

YouTube

YouTube

[Fruitacious B]

That's some pretty crazy shit. It wasn't until they started shooting at the people in the van that were helping the wounded guy that it really sucked me in.

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

*shrugs shoulders* civilian casualties are part of war.

[vaga1220 *]

Exactly. Most people accept that collateral damage is part of war and is unavoidable. Right up until they see it; then it's an outrage.

[GetMeOff]

Rather safe than sorry. There's no way to tell those sand suckers were carrying cameras or what ever the hell they were carrying.

[Ugly Bastard]

First

[Mr. Blonde]

For the record it was the cover up I think that bothered most people, not the actual incident.

[GetMeOff]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

For the record it was the cover up I think that bothered most people, not the actual incident.

I'm sure that there are tons of cover ups you don't know about in the war overseas. Of course they're going to cover something like this up.

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

With all of the technology at their disposal, the military should have no problem discerning the difference between a camera and a fucking gun. In my opinion that video was chock full of a bunch of trigger happy military douches trying to find any reason to squeeze the trigger.

Shoot first ask questions later?

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

I'm too apathetic to look it up but what was the coverup? Or did they just not release the footage?

They have to keep secret the rules of engagement or the enemy can sploit it. They'll probably change it now that this tape is out.

[Fruitacious B]

With all of the technology at their disposal, the military should have no problem discerning the difference between a camera and a fucking gun. In my opinion that video was chock full of a bunch of trigger happy military douches trying to find any reason to squeeze the trigger.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

In my opinion that video was chock full of a bunch of trigger happy military douches trying to find any reason to squeeze the trigger.

They were under PRESSURE MAN! DO YOU KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO SEE YOUR BEST FRIEND BLOWN UP RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES? DO YA!?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO GO FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND HAVE YOUR GIRLFRIEND STOLEN WHILE YOUR FRIENDS ARE DYING RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES?!?!?

DO YOU!?

[vaga1220 *]

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

With all of the technology at their disposal, the military should have no problem discerning the difference between a camera and a fucking gun. In my opinion that video was chock full of a bunch of trigger happy military douches trying to find any reason to squeeze the trigger.

The presence of cameras doesn't mean shit as insurgents often video tape and take pictures of their attacks. I would also like to point out that some of the guys shot in the video where armed (With AK-47's and RPG's) and these were the same insurgents who had just fired upon US soldiers. Which is why the fucking Apaches where called in, in the first place.

[vaga1220 *]

[Dent]

WIKILEAKS LEAKED USA ENEMY COMBATANT IDENTIFICATION MANUAL

[Mr. Blonde]

I don't know if anybody has been really following it, but in the past weeks the proverbial shit has hit the fan. The U.S. gov. is now petitioning the FBI to investigate the leaks of close to 90,000 documents and Julian Assange is getting facetime on TV like crazy.


BBC News - Afghan leak: Wikileaks' Assange denies 'blood on hands'

WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File | Threat Level | Wired.com

[Ugly Bastard]

Blonde,

I want to know more about wikileaks but am too lazy/unresourceful to figure it out on my own. Can you answer some questions for me?

What is WikiLeaks? What is it's purpose?
What methods do they use to achieve this purpose?
Iyo, why do you believe this is a noble purpose?
How long have they been around? How did they get started?
Can you describe a couple of their major achievements?
Do they make money? If so, how? How many people work to help them achieve their ends?
Do you believe that the founder or anyone associated with them are or ever have been in any state of true danger of bodily harm or even death as a result of the information they exposed? If so, has this threat ever been directly from the US government?
What do you see for their future? Describe a hypothetical scenario in which WikiLeaks asserts itself in a way more grandiose than they have thus far.

Thank you.