Follow Up Letter to Glenn Greenwald on the Subject of Wikileaks: Who Are You Going to Believe? Me or Cass Sunstein?

by Scott Creighton

Glenn;

Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to address the Open Letter and my subsequent emails on the subject.  I will address your statements and questions you sent in the three emails at this point.

Hi Scott – I read that and found it interesting, but honestly, unpersuasive. Are these really revelations that the U.S. Government wanted publicly disclosed? Could someone explain why they’d want this?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks

But first, a little relevant history…

In late 2006 when Wikileaks was formed, there was already a great deal of concern about the serious threat leaks may pose to the imperial agenda that the Bush regime was following.  In 2004 the Abu Ghraib photos went public, becoming the biggest story since Shock And Awe began and Seymour Hersh was writing about them in the New Yorker. Then that same year, the torture memos came out and the shit really hit the fan.  In May of 2005, the Downing Street Memos popped up. In the end, they probably set in motion the process that cost Tony Blair his job. In early 2007  Hersh wrote about how the General Taguba was forced into retirement for exposing the efforts of Rumsfeld to squash the Taguba Report and cover-up crimes of torture and abuse of detainees in his custody. It is not difficult to conclude that in the end Rumsfeld lost his job over leaks as well. There had been other damaging leaks as well at that point, but this list of some of the “biggies” should serve to make my point adequately.

The entire point of the Global War on Terror (Global Free Market Wars, as I call them) is to create an ever-changing, ever shifting, new global target as a pretext for invasion and occupation of foreign nations much like in previous decades when the “economic hitmen” would attempt to undermine the economies of targeted nations in order to allow the IMF and their Chicago School style “shock therapy” economic model to gain control.

Thanks to the Global War on Terror, these days all one has to do is claim there is a branch affiliate of al Qaeda operating in some country and off we go… examples… Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen… just to name a few.

There is a great deal of power and money at stake here and when you consider the fact that real leaks had already posed a serious problem and threat to that agenda before Wikileaks was even created, it only makes sense that someone would try to come up with a way to mitigate it.

In late 2006 Wikileaks was formed around the same time that intelligence agencies formed two other “Wikipedia” type systems for their own use. “Oogle” and “Intelipedia” were created in Sept. of 2006, about the same time Julian Assange was contacting people in the hacker world trying to put together a project he called “Wikileaks”.

“The new tools include a federated search engine called Oogle and Intellipedia, a controversial intelligence data-sharing tool based on Wiki social software technology.

The intelligence community’s use of social software has attracted a group of users and advocates known as the Intellipedians. Wiki allows users to post information and continually update it in response to events in a collective and collaborative fashion.”  GCN

When first contacted by Assange to help with the project, John Young, already providing an established internet site for leakers with Cryptome, agreed to help out. But soon after Young began to suspect something was wrong with what Assange was trying to create. He pulled out and published the email chains.

“All the messages received were published. My objections had been building, shown in later messages, after initial support. The finally fed-up turnaround occurred with the publication today of the $5 million dollar by July fund-raising goal — see messages at the tail-end. I called that — along with a delay in offering a public discussion and critique forum and failure to provide a credible batch of leaked documents for public scrutiny — a surefire indication of a scam. This is the exact technique used by snake oilers, pols and spies. Requests to Cryptome to keep stuff quiet are regular fare and they always get published. Next up, the names and affiliations of the perps if they don’t reveal themselves in an open forum.” John Young, Dec. 2006

As Young’s suspicions began to reverberate through the hacker community, a funny thing happened… suddenly Wikileaks started getting positive press… in the main stream media. This of course is before they “leaked’ anything. The purpose of that is clear… they were attempting to “control the narrative” about their start-up project.

“Instead of a couple of academic specialists, Wikileaks will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability,” its organizers write on the site’s FAQ page. “They will be able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it…”  TIME Jan. 2007

Even Cass Sunstein, a man who would later write about the need for “cognitive infiltration” of dissident groups and movements, would get into the act in Feb. of 2007… this while the MSM was already telling the people that they shouldn’t believe the “conspiracy theories” that Wikileaks (which still had not published ANYTHING) was a CIA operation…

“By March, more than one million leaked documents from governments and corporations in Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Bloc will be available online in a bold new collective experiment in whistle-blowing. That is, of course, as long as you don’t accept any of the conspiracy theories brewing that Wikileaks.org could be a front for the CIA or some other intelligence agency.” TIME Jan. 2007

Isn’t it odd Glenn, that a man who would later boast about the process of cognitive infiltration of dissident movements ,would be coming out in favor of a leak site prior to Wikileaks’ first publication and even going so far as to attempt to dispel the growing concern that it might just be a CIA Honey Pot? Especially after the intelligence agencies had just launched their own Intellipedia?

For more information on the roots of Wikileaks, try reading this.

Personally, given the history of Wikileaks, when someone like Cass Sunstein mentions the buzz words “conspiracy theory” I tend to take notice. Much like when Abe Foxman or George W. Bush use them. It’s a cheap ploy to limit rational discourse and critical thinking.

There is a bit of the history of Wikileaks.

Let’s take a look at your arguments now…

Back to your question. You link me to your article titled “What Wikileaks Revealed to the World in 2010″. This is a collection of articles you have put together which supposedly show the value of Wikileaks as a truth revealing site.

I won’t bother linking to you the many articles you left out which Wikileaks has also offered up to the world presenting various discredited state department friendly “truths” like.. North Korea providing missiles to Iran, Iran aiding the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Pakistan aiding the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, various implications that the people and leaders of the Arab world want the U.S. to “regime change” Iran… so forth and so on.

You left those particular gems out of the discussion and so will I.

But, I could in fact provide you with a list probably twice  as long as yours with these discredited globalization friendly tidbits of misinformation.

The first one you list is the “Collateral Damage” video which shows a U.S. gunship firing on two journalists and their group. As I have already explained to you, that first big-time attention-getting “leak” is troubling in the sense that it does show civilians getting killed, but I think it was carefully chosen. That wasn’t a rape or torture… it showed a group being fired upon, two members of which had Ak-47s, they were less than 6 blocks from a gunfight, and in the end it depicted U.S. soldiers saving the lives of two kids who were shot while they could not be seen inside the van.  Why would they release that?  Because it creates credibility for Wikileaks while it only really depicts something we already knew… civilians get killed in Iraq. And in that case, an ARMED group and the soldiers did what they could to save kids lives. Got it?

The next one you list is of soldiers gleefully talking about shooting  those people.  Do I really have to explain how pointless it is to say soldiers enjoy shooting “the terrorists”?

The next one is from Oct. 2010 and I suppose it ranks up there in your books because you skipped what looked like a developing chronological order.

This deals with the recent “leak” that claims that the U.S. looked the other way as Iraqis tortured civilians.  Let’s go back to all those real leaks and the Taguba Report. This “leak” claims that we aren’t torturing folks, it’s all those evil Iraqis doing it, the ones we have to get rid of.  You know, I wrote about this “leak” and how it was being misrepresented all across the desperate liberal blog-o-sphere.

I showed that in those cables they clearly stated that investigations were ongoing and that the victims (of Iraqi on Iraqi abuse) were being given the proper medical treatment.

Now, I could go on and on with this. But let us just say for argument, that you are not deliberately trying to mislead anyone, you are just doing what Cass Sunstein and many others back in the day knew you would… you are seeing what you want to see in the Wikileaks and ignoring the rest.

This is done on an individual, leak by leak, basis and it is done (as exemplified by your list of only the “leaks” that you consider useful and respectable by those of us on the dissident mainstream) by your part, in your list of “What Wikileaks Revealed in 2010″

You are cherry-picking the leaks Glenn. Not only are you cherry-picking just the leaks you think do us some good, but you are also cherry-picking the context and even the text of those leaks themselves.

Let’s move on…

“Also, is depicting Julian Assange as a rapist and terrorist part of the big government plot to vest him with credibility?” Glenn Greenwald

“big government plot”?  Starting to sound like we are moving toward using that “conspiracy theory” label, aren’t we?

What do we actually know about this story, Glenn?  Assange has admitted that he doesn’t know where these “leaks” came from… Manning has never admitted to sending anything… and all we have, the ENTIRE story, comes from a guy you yourself have concluded is an FBI informant and of highly suspicious character.  Now, you are even engaged in a fight with Wired to get them to release all of the suspect instant messages between Manning and Lamo because they refuse to do it.

“big government plot”? Seems to me that is just Lamo, another guy from Wired who was also busted by the FBI, and possibly a group at the NSA… how “big” is that?

But to answer your question… do you support rapists? Do you think rapists should go to jail? So why do you support Assange? Answer: the first story that came out was that the condom broke… remember? The story that is coming out to people like you and Amy Goodman and Michael Moore is that the whole thing is a set-up, right?

Now another part of the story comes out. It wasn’t a broken condom, it was Assange holding a woman down and forcing himself on her and then doing about the same thing to another woman days later while she was sleeping.  Is that rape? I call that rape. Now THAT is the story they put out to discredit him and ultimately justify his prosecution. Of course, you ignore that story or discredit it.

The point is, without threat of prosecution, we wouldn’t be discussing any of this… so that is why the “big government plot” needed to create that story. To get legitimate reporters like you to spend all of your time focusing on Julian Assange rather than all the other stuff going on right now.

That’s why Glenn.

“I think Julian is going to end up in prison, and I’ll be interested in what you have to say then.” Glenn Greenwald

Oh you haven’t got to wait. I’ll tell you right now… who cares?

How many Iraqi union leaders are in black sites right now?  How many opposition party members? How about resistance members in Afghanistan?  How many journalists have been disappeared in Mexico?

Julian is living in a mansion owned by a guy who’s business has ties to George Soros (a man who had made billions off the speculation trade in all these countries that have been invaded and occupied in the Global Free Market Wars). He is collecting money to help pay his legal fees, at this time he has collected 1.3 million dollars and only paid out 200,000 worth of fees. He is about to cash in to the tune of another 1.3 or so million bucks… and at this point he is releasing some “leaks” at the rate of about 20 a day.  All this time he is claiming to have the goods on various  dirty little secrets, but he won’t release any of them as long as he stays a free man living in the lap of luxury.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians are being attacked (while Assange says he won’t release embarrassing info about Israel for 6 months), Iraqis are still being put in black bags and renditioned, the war in Afghanistan has taken the lives of civilians at a record-setting pace, drones are killing more and more civilians in Pakistan, and the Global Free Market Wars are poised to spill over into still more nations.

You think putting Assange in jail proves one thing or the other?

You don’t think patsy’s get set up and imprisoned after their usefulness has come to an end? You should read a little bit about Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein before you try to make that claim to me.

Hell, even Pinochet eventually had to go.

Yes, they put their assets in prison from time to time.  Doesn’t mean they weren’t assets.

Arundhati Roy is facing sedition charges in India. Why aren’t you as concerned about her? She really is a journalist and there is absolutely no question about her legitimacy. Where are the endless articles about the injustice she faces on your website? How about Amy Goodman’s?

In conclusion

Yes, I thank you for taking the time to answer my Open Letter, but I have to tell you, it is I who am not convinced.  You avoided many of the issues that I brought up in our last communication dealing with just the most recent developments in the Wikileaks psyop. You simply said you weren’t convinced.

Well, hopefully I have provided some more information for you to consider. Take a look at what Michel Chossudovsky put together just a little while ago.

I think you will find that there is more than ample reason to doubt Julian Assange’s credibility when you look at the history of the organization, who supported it at first, what they have actually leaked (when you don’t cherry-pick the articles and the texts of said same), and what Assange himself has been doing these last few months.

Fact is, Assange is hiding behind the leaks that he supposedly has. He is collecting large sums of money, and the Global Free Market Wars are still advancing… and whether you like to believe it or not, much of the old bullshit propaganda is being given a fresh coat of liberal appealing paint with this Wikileaks rebranding project.

I write this in the hope that you will take it into consideration. With a new congress coming into DC, the only way we can stop the passage of some draconian limitations on our internet freedoms is to expose what this Wikileaks project really is.

It won’t matter whether or not you think Julian is a journalist. When he publishes something that ends up costing some CIA asset his life or freedom in Iran or Pakistan or India, the mood of the public will shift even farther to the right, and Joe Liebermann will be right there with another Patriot Act at the ready. And it won’t be that long from now.

If you don’t believe me, read Global Research’s work on the matter… read writing from Pakistan, Iran, China, the UK, even Russia and the various other countries who have been saying Wikileaks is an operation for some time now.

The evidence is out there… Assange’s recent behavior makes it clear. Now unless you would rather take Cass Sunstein’s word on the matter, I hope this inspires a little further reading on the subject.

Sites like mine don’t have long, so if you don’t mind, I think I have given Julian’s little psyop enough coverage for the day.

About these ads

14 Responses

  1. Excellent. How can Glenn dispute this one? At first I was excited and thought maybe it would be worth trying to convince him, but if he still finds all this “unpersuasive” then this is a waste of time. If he continues to support Wikileaks, its either bc hes fulfilling an agenda or he’s too stubborn and embarrassed to recant support for wikileaks after months of praise.

    And about Julian Assange, well he sure knows how to pick top quality lawyers:
    His former lawyer “Mark Stephens of Finer, Stephens, Innocent has threatened Derek Summerfield, the doctor who has been tirelessly campaigning against the complicity of the Israeli Medical Association and its President, Yoram Blachar, in the torture of Palestinians, with a libel suit if he doesn’t shut up.”

    http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-so-innocent-index-on-censorship.html

    He also just happens to be a legal adviser to the Rothchild Waddesdon Trust.

    http://www.charityperformance.com/charity-details.php?id=17426

    His other lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, well just look at the articles and work that he has done:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/author/geoffrey-robertson/

    He represented Salman Rushdie(Media whore, the war loving MSM loves to bring this guy and talk about them evil Muslims. He’s a favorite of Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher. Rushdie didn’t approve of what Arundhati Roy had to say about the Mumbai attacks.)

    On June 8th, 2010 he wrote an article about Iranian war criminals…from the 1980s. He forgot to write about the Israeli war crime that happened a week before he wrote this article. But we should be focusing on the real problems…like Iran.

  2. To Whocares (How can Glenn dispute this one?):

    Because he “is either wholly uninformed, a stupid and ignorant asshole or complicit”.

    http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/richard-noggin-saturday-and-the-empires-leaking-dick/

    (Nicely done, Scott)

  3. BTW: I don’t think Glenn Greenwald is stupid.

  4. Great article Scott. I’d really like to see Glenn’s reaction.

    Assange’s lawyers and the company he keeps give him away to anyone thinking clearly.

  5. These two articles by Scott, especially the second one are amazing. Well written, concise and filled with clear thinking and honest language.

    Glenn must be wishing he never answered the first one, with his dismissive, “I’m unconvinced” reply.
    Because now there is simply no possible way for him to put the ‘truth genie’ back into the bottle.

    Glen is one of these:

    A. willfully ignorant, AFRAID to confront the truth.

    B. a very LAZY journalist who has not tried very hard to understand this

    C. a good guy trying hard to figure it out, but he is NOT SMART enough

    D. fully aware of the wiki fakery, and is going along with the fascist media narrative out of fear or greed.

    The answer is not A B or C.
    It is D. The only question is whether Glenn is being rewarded for lying, or whether Glenn is lying out of fear for his safety. He is no dummy. Fear or greed or both.

    PS An interesting sidebar to all of this is Gordon Duff on “The day the wikileaks died’
    pacificfreepress.com a lefty gatekeeper site has it up now. This mess gets curiouser and curiouser!

  6. “Arundhati Roy is facing sedition charges in India. Why aren’t you as concerned about her? She really is a journalist and there is absolutely no question about her legitimacy. Where are the endless articles about the injustice she faces on your website? How about Amy Goodman’s?”

    To take that a step further and maybe in a slightly different direction-where are the investigative reports on 9/11 by corporate funded “alternative” media figures like you,Goodman etc.? It has been almost 10 years and you’ve all failed miserably. I have a pretty good idea why you’ve failed miserably and have proven to be a bunch of cowards on the subject but I figured I would just put the question out there since you’ll likely read this at some point.

    You do better work than most of your fellow “journalists”, I even emailed you last month giving you credit for your stories on the recent FBI entrapment’s. 9/11 is the litmus test though and you and most of your colleagues(all of them in the MSM) are failures and cowards. To basically ignore 9/11(or belittle people who ACTUALLY investigate/research it) is shameful and pathetic of anyone considering themselves “journalists”.

    I like how you nibble around the edges of the “war on terror” fraud and fear mongering but by allowing the 9/11 lies to stand you shoot yourself(and all of us) in the foot. You in fact give the warmongers an assist and do them more benefit than harm by ignoring what you do. As long as you let the big lies stand they laugh at your articles about their lesser lies and crimes. Guess you have a job to keep so you better self censor huh? Or worse-you actually have convinced yourself that you believe the Bush/MSM conspiracy theory about 19 muslims with box cutters and magic passports. Either reason for your silence does not speak well to your journalistic credibility.

    Sorry, I felt I had to get that off of my chest. Good article though Scott. I can easily see this whole wiki-fraud ending with a “crackdown” on the internet as we know it. Also, its surprising how Glenn Greenwald and anybody else who defends wikileaks basically ignores the topic of Israel. Actually its not at all, who am I kidding.

  7. Internet crackdown, oh its fine, they did try to warn us in February of last year.

    “CNN Presents: We Were Warned, Cyber Shockwave”

    Don’t let former AIPAC member Blitzer hosting the “simulated” cyber attack and Israeli spies liberator Chertoff participating in a “mock” National Security Council meeting worry you :D.

    Ah. Anytime our rights are scraped away, you can bet Chertoff will be there…thanks for the Patriot Act and body scanners Chert you goofball you.

  8. John Young at Cryptome said it all in a December 29th post “Wikileaks Rest In Peace”, where he says “The original merits of Wikileaks have been lost in its transformation into a publicity and fund-raising vehicle for Julian Assange as indicated in the redesign website which billboards him”. Everyone has their price, and perhaps someone has found Mr. Greenwald’s. It could be as simple as avoiding approbation in the tribal community. Why else would a supposedly fearless journalist fall in lockstep with the controlled media?

  9. Andre, I think you are using the word, “approbation”, incorrectly. But, I understand what you are trying to say about Greenwald’s wanting to be a player in the mainstream controlled media.

    As has been remarked about before, he doesn’t have much to say about 9/11 either. Maybe it’s a little too embarrassing to have to acknowledge Mossad’s obvious involvement?

  10. Just so you know…

    After I published this yesterday, I sent a copy to Mr. Greenwald and he did respond.

    He took exception to my suggestion that Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, and he look on the alleged rape allegations as being a set-up. Specifically what he said was this…

    “I never said any of that. I never said the whole thing is a set-up. I haven’t ignored the rape charges. And I haven’t tried to discredited them. You just fabricated all of that.”

    Actually what I said was “Of course, you ignore that story or discredit it”… in my follow-up email I told him I could easily have missed his articles on the subject and asked him to provide me links to those. At this point he has not.

    I will search his volume of articles on Julian Assange again and see if I missed that.

    Rather than sending me a link to his article on the subject at hand, he sent this lone comment…

    “The Mossad and CIA can’t protect their asset from rape charges?”

    to which I responded with a one line question..

    who said anything about Mossad?

    At this point he has not responded to any of the substantive portions of the letters. He has not discussed with me any of the history of Wikileaks, Julian’s recent behavior, his hiding behind the threat of releasing “damaging” cables, his decision to hold damaging cables about Israel for 6 months, or his connections with mainstream media outlets and now publishing houses.

    I explained to him how the charges allow him to take up a persecuted stance, how they do seem very odd, how one of the women does have an association with a known CIA asset, and how Carl Rove went over to Sweden to get their prosecutor to refile the charges that were initially dropped the first time. I told him that its possible that his handlers could have also set the whole thing up to frighten him or motivate him… who knows. I then showed him that in fact, he isn’t in prison, he’s living in a mansion, still chasing tail, and signing book deals… Moore paid his bail, Pilger pleaded for him in court, and he has NOT been extradited at this point… so if these charges are real, there is also a case to be made for the fact that the CIA and state department ARE in fact protecting their asset.

    I told Glenn, at this point it is impossible to tell. But that in itself proves nothing either way.

    I have not heard back from Glenn.

    I have to say I am disappointed that Glenn has not replied with regard to the evidence I presented. Perhaps he is preparing a longer response… perhaps he is doing some research of his own.

    Just thought I would keep you up to date.

  11. Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:41:07 -0800
    To:
    From: John Young

    “His comments on WL were disdainful, and appear to have been made to buttress his own endeavor as more honorable and respectable — he has a habit of doing that, but so do others who cherish their reputation (and carefully nuture support of those who really have a problem with uncontrolled information as if it is “dangerous to go too far, yadda, yadda.”).

    Reporters, and keep in mind they are competitors with WL as much as any keepers of secrets and peddlers of inside information, (all obsessed with appearing to be “responsible” arbiters of what information gets published) will most certainly dig for unfriendly aspects of WL to gain reader attention and to show they are not complicit in WL unrespectable intentions.

    Expect agents of the authorities to pry into WL by way of journalists, supporters, funders, advisory board members; that is customary for those hoping to smoke out opposition.

    Expect smears, lies, forgeries, betrayal, bribes, and the host of common tools used to suppress dissent.

    Expect taunts, insults, ridicule, praise, admiration, obsequiousness, arrogance, skepticism, demands for who the fuck are you, I need the information for an urgent deadline.

    Expect accusations that someone else associated with WL has already told me such and such so why are you being so coy?

    Expect much flattery and disdain.

    Beware of releasing information about WL founders and supporters, that will be grist for the truth twisters. Keep anonymous as possible or WL is doomed.

    This discussion list is going to be leaked. Anonymize, anonymize every communication with the press and potential recruits.

    Somebody is going to come at me as the name on the NSI registry. The less I know about WL people the better. And I know for sure that everyone associated with WL is a bald-faced liar, an agent of the authorities and the worst of the worst.”

  12. The problem about crying psyop is that it affects the credibility of all who blog and offer information. But that is at least an honest approach. There are doubts about his motives, but it appears to be the case that the cables a low grade form of intel, are accurate.

    He and the others involved, he is not alone, may have impure motives. So may you? Your point seems to be that all the cables represent American viewpoints!

    Duh! That is the source, after all. Far higher grade intel exists in UKUSA hands, that could be leaked. Fact is, bureaucrats hate leaking anything and this operation appears to be grossly embarrassing for America.

    Is that what makes you so energised?

  13. Nothing, repeat, NOTHING embarrasses the criminals that run this Corporately controlled Government. It is far beyond any sensibilities.
    They don’t care about that.
    They only care about the real danger: illuminating the 911 culprits and the Zionistic monsters that control our every move in the world.
    Very little else has the power to embarrass them.

  14. Willy,

    I think the answer will come in the form of henchmen trying to do exactly what John outlines. The answer to the question: Is Glenn Greenwald a hack or wholly uninformed (for as I listed before, he is NOT stupid). That leaves the two remaining choices.
    If the henchmen do what is listed, Greenwald is likely a hack (which would be a huge disappointment for me). My hope is that he is uninformed and your work will awaken him to reality.
    Something tells me that he has been “reached”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 912 other followers

%d bloggers like this: