Saturday, September 24, 2011

#Cryptome #Wikileaks #Murdoch :Wall Street Journal Secrecy

To: "Whalen, Jeanne" <Jeanne.Whalen[at]>
From: John Young <jya[at]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:45 +0600
Subject: RE: from the WSJ


Following up our telephone exchange on Friday:

1. You said the WSJ editor turned down the use of Rupert Murdoch's
penthouse for an inteview because editorial and business are kept
separate and Murdoch is business. That is hoarily disingenuous for
no media keeps editorial and business separate, the two are
inseparable with business always in control.

2. I said there is no need for me to comment further on Wikileaks, 
the story is now a churn of publicity stunts by Wikileaks, its
supporters and detractors.

3. You said there was interest in reporting on Cryptome in addition
to Wikileaks. I said that is another story, not related to Wikileaks.

To amplify 3, Cryptome shares with Wikileaks and many others
older and newer, the aim of reducing secrecy in government,
business, organizations, institutions and individuals.

Pervasive secrecy corrupts as an essential protector of those who
want control and manipulate the citzenry and subjects. Those who 
advocate secrecy always justify it by claims of threats that require 
secrecy to prevent or fight.

In truth, secrecy protects and empowers those who use it and 
weakens those for whom it is invoked to protect.

Secrecy hides privilege, incompetence and deception of
those who depend on it and who would be disempowered
without it.

The very few legitimate uses of secrecy have served as the
seed for unjustified expanded and illegitimate uses.

A vast global enterprise of governments, institutions, organizations,
businesses and individuals dependent up the secrecy of abuse
of secrecy has evolved into an immensely valuable practice whose
cost to the public and benefits to its practitioners are concealed
by secrecy.

Secrecy has led to a very large undergournd criminal enterprise
dealing with stolen, forged, faked, and planted "secret" information
involving governments, businesses, NGOs, institutions and
individuals. Its value likely exceeds that of the drug trade, with 
which it works in concert to hide assets, procedures and operators
that is keep the secrets in emulation of the secretkeepers.

Ex-secretkeepers are involved in this undergroung enterprise
as beneficiares, informants, facilitators of exchanges with
the agoveground secretkeepers and as spies for hire.

Secrecy is the single most threatening practice against democracy
and democratic procedures such that it is highly likely that there is
no democracy or democratic institutions unsullied by secrecy.

Secrecy poses the greatest threat to the United States because
it divides the poplulation into two groups, those with access to
secret information and those without. This asymmetrial access
to information vital to the United States as a democracy will
eventually turn it into an autocracy run by those with access
to secret informaton, protected by laws written to legitimate
this privileged access and to punish those who violate these

Those with access to secret information cannot honestly
partake in public discourse due to the requirement to lie
and dissumlate about what is secret information. They can
only speak to one another never in public. Similarly those
without access to secret information cannot fully
debate the issues which affect the nation, including
alleged threats promulagsted by secretkeepers who
are forbidden by law to disclose what they know.

Senator Patrick Moynihan, among others, has explored
the damaging consequences of excessive secrecy. Attempts
to debate these consequences have been suppressed
or distorted by secrecy practices and laws.

Efforts, governmental and private, to diminish secrecy
have had modest effects, and the amount of secret information
continues to grow virtually unchecked and concealed by
the very means questioned, secrecy itself.

These secrecy-reduction efforts are continually being attacked 
by the secrets enterprise by secrecy-wielding oveseers, including 
presidents, legislators and the courts. 

While some of the privileged media challenge these practices, 
most do not and thereby reinforce the unsavory.

It should not be surprising that this leads to an increase in 
efforts to challenge secrecy practices by those excluded, 
including such initiatives as, among many others around
the globe, Cryptome and Wikileaks.

Cryptome disagrees with the use of secrecy by Wikileaks
and its monetization of secret information which mimics
those it ostensibly opposes, say, Rupert Murdoch, among
untold others.


Thursday, September 22, 2011

#Guardian: Why we are publishing Julian Assange's (unauthorised) autobiography

  • Canongate admires what Assange and WikiLeaks achieved. We are proud of the book itself, and aware of the sweet irony of it all
Julian Assange – the Unauthorised Autobiography 'is a compelling portrait of one of the most mercurial figures alive today'. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA


It wasn't supposed to happen like this.

Late last year Canongate, the publishing house I work for, signed Julian Assange's autobiography to huge media attention. Julian had just been released from Wandsworth prison and wanted to find a publisher for his book. And why not? Everyone else was at it. Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the disillusioned former WikiLeaks spokesperson, was busy spinning his memoir. The Guardian and the New York Times were eager to put their respective versions of events across. Here was Julian's chance to raise some much-needed money for WikiLeaks and to set his critics straight. And Canongate Books seemed like the perfect fit: a small, independent publishing house that has always been happy to take a risk and admired what Julian and WikiLeaks had achieved.

The first three months couldn't have gone much better. Canongate's managing director, Jamie Byng, and I travelled up to Norfolk to see Julian in early January. Our first priority was to find a ghostwriter to work on the project. Julian was very clear about what he wanted: "I have all the facts. Find me a novelist who can turn those facts into stories."

We struck it lucky with the writer we found: an award-winning novelist who was equally comfortable writing serious, hard-hitting reportage. He was a strong character too. Somebody who could put his hand up and tell Julian when he was talking shit or veering off subject. It was a brilliant combination and the two men worked late into the night, most nights, drinking whisky in the icy-cold drawing room at Ellingham Hall through January, February and March.

At the same time, Canongate – on Julian's behalf – struck rights deals with 38 of the best publishing houses around the world. This really would be a global book launch, which seemed fitting for the founder of WikiLeaks and his international fanbase. What could possibly go wrong?

Julian's ghostwriter delivered a brilliant first draft of the book, bang on schedule, at the end of March. We read it and loved it. Julian didn't. He didn't love it. We're not even sure how much he actually read. It was an extraordinary reaction to a manuscript he should have been grateful for and immensely proud of.

What followed was a series of broken promises. We set Julian free to work on the manuscript himself. He had six weeks to edit and rewrite. On the day he was supposed to return it to us, we heard that he'd lost all of his work. It was buried in one of his many laptops and he couldn't find it (dogs and homework came to mind). Then he told us he wanted to cancel his contract. But he couldn't repay his advance. He had already signed it over to his lawyers to cover his escalating legal bills.

There have been countless other twists and turns to this extraordinary story. But the reason we've decided to publish the book – against Julian's will, but with clear forewarning – is this: with no prospect of ever seeing Julian's advance repaid to us, and with little chance of convincing Julian to engage with that first draft, we had only one sensible option – to publish the draft that we felt was so strong and which conformed so closely to the original brief.

There is a financial imperative, of course. We hope that in publishing the book we will recover some of our losses. But we are also immensely proud of the book itself. It is a compelling portrait of one of the most mercurial figures alive today.

As for that much commented-upon subtitle, The Unauthorised Autobiography, it is definitely a publishing first. And given we're talking about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks there is, of course, a sweet irony to it too.

• Nick Davies, not to be confused with the Guardian reporter Nick Davies, is publishing director at Canongate

#Wikileaks :Congressional Research Service releases report on WikiLeaks, publishing classified info, Espionage Act, & the 1st Amd:

#wlfind #Cablegate at work...

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

#wlfind #Assange #Guardian #CENSORSHIP EXPOSED!

Keep Us Strong 

The Guardian how transparent are they ?

David Leigh has made some very unpleasant snide remarks today on twitter toward Julian Assange, he is acting like a child ,so lets take a closer look at David Leigh and what he believes is in the publics interest.

The Guardian claim to be the ones who EXPOSED hackgate but that is not strictly true ,Steve Nott back in 1999 went to the Sun and the Mirror News Group telling how easy it was to listen into  voicemail. The story was spiked even though Steve was paid by Oomagh Blackman ?  The Guardian certainly have no interest in Steve or his story , now, why would that be surely it is in the publics interest to know just how long hacking has been going on and that it is not just contained in the Murdoch Empire.

Next, the McCanns, who ask for donations to search for their child told a very strange story about her alleged abduction..a story that made no sense. One would imagine the Guardian,  who have the very best journalists would have realized pretty early on that the McCanns were not quite what they seemed, instead of helping the investigation they did everything they could to sabotage it, refusing to answer police questions and not returning for the reconstruction resulted in the case  being shelved. Information once again kept from the public and instead of reporting the truth, the British press only published what the McCanns wanted them to say.

Lets move on, after the shelving of the investigation ,the police files were released to the public, they explained in detail why the McCanns were made arguidos (suspects) in the disappearance of their daughter...once again the Guardian ,along with the rest of the 'free' British press thought it not in our best interest to be informed ,even though the public were donating large amounts of money !

Most, if not all British journalists have the police files to publish in their respective newspapers, this includes police witness statements and one in particular that would have stopped most people in their tracks, or at least certainly led them to ask questions of the McCanns and their group.  I leave here for you to read a statement about Dr.David Payne and Madeleines father (an alleged paedophile incident) and ask you, to ask David Leigh from the Guardian, why he did not think this information was in the publics interest  and to also ask him why this, what may have been vital information was held back for several months by Leicester Police from the PORTUGUESE investigation !!!! ..more importantly he, as an investigitve journalist, did  not see fit to ask the very same question , a three year old child is missing for heaven sake?.. The British press are not 'free' to do as they wish , but Julian Assange is and I have no doubt inside those snide jabs from David Leigh there is a little bit of jealousy and envy otherwise why did he not publish the police files that show the McCanns in a very different light and maybe achieved the scoop of his lifetime...THE TRUTH of what really happened to little Maddie ...AND the truth is he cannot , because the McCann case is a Goverment cover-up and David Leigh takes his orders like all other British journalists NOT to go anywhere near the truth !

The statemant The GUARDIAN's  David Leigh will never publish but Julian Assange would.

STEVE NOTT: The man who really broke 'HACKGATE'

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Friday, September 9, 2011

#Turkey threatens war with #ISRAEL for not receiving Libyan oil cut.

#IRAQ #Obama wants to keep 3 - 5000 U.S. troops into 2012.

The Obama administration would like to keep about 3,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year but has not begun formal discussions with the Iraqis about the size or makeup of the force, U.S. officials said.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has expressed a desire to keep some U.S. trainers in the country in 2012, past the deadline negotiated by the George W. Bush administration to remove all U.S. troops from the country.

But the Iraqi leader faces staunch opposition from key members of his coalition government who are deeply opposed to any U.S. presence. Some members of the coalition have threatened to boycott the government if it allows any U.S. forces to stay.
Senior U.S. officials have said they are hopeful that they will be able to reach an agreement with the Iraqis on maintaining the small training force. The Iraqis will have to agree to any U.S. more

#IRAN #TURKEY #NATO :Turkey made clear it will not sign up NATO document that names Iran as threat

Monday, September 5, 2011

#wlfind International pressure pressure led to for-profit energy cos in Central America.

 In Belize, company bullied goverment & (cont)......

#wlfind :Leaked cable: Ex-Blackwater guards kept working in Iraq

#Bahrain #wlfind Hamad [King of #Bahrain] asked the US if they could pull the plug of Arabsat & make Ajazeera disappear

The End of #Wikileaks by Tom watson

Last fall when the news broke that WikiLeaks was in possession of a quarter million U.S. diplomatic cables, I wrote that the putative pro-transparency organization was in fact a detriment to a serious movement aimed at more openness in government. Mine was among the few voices on the left at the time to take this position, but I believed in my bones that WikiLeaks founder and leader Julian Assange was more interested in fame and power (and money, as it later turned out) than he was in a true democratization of government secrets and data. Further, I came to believe that the flamboyant and outspoken Assange was WikiLeaks - that his voice, his decisions, his direction, his personal politics, and his personality were fused permanently to the organization.
Finally, I asserted that openness by force in a democratic society without the consent or participation of the governed isn't really openness at all. "Wikileaks is resolutely anti-engagement, anti-development, anti-cooperation, and anti-peace, " I wrote last December. "And virulently to its very DNA, anti-democratic."
The events of the last few days prove that my 2010 assertions were entirely correct, but there's not much joy in the realization. You see, WikiLeaks could have been a contender.
Releasing the full database of unredacted cables has exposed scores of U.S. information sources to the world (and to the intelligence services of regimes that would do them harm). WikiLeaks' original media partners in the carefully redacted and researched initial tranche of limited releases - The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel - excoriated the organization in an extraordinary joint statement today:
We cannot defend the needless publication of the complete data – indeed, we are united in condemning it. The decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone.
My friend Micah Sifry, author of WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency and one the most important voices for more open government data, correctly sketched the epitaph for WikiLeaks in his TechPresident post today.
WikiLeaks has now indiscriminately dumped the whole cable set into the public arena, and in doing so it has tossed away whatever claim it might have had to the moral high ground. The argument that others were doing it already, or that bad actors were already getting access to the leaked master file and thus this was a mitigating step to reduce coming harms, or that it's somehow The Guardian's fault for publishing what it thought was a defunct password, doesn't absolve WikiLeaks of its large share of responsibility for this dump.
People are human; to err is human. But refusing to admit error, that is hubris. Assange, like Icarus, thought he could fly to the sun.
And in doing so, Assange may well have set the cause of more open public sector data on a backward path. Do we need an independent international organization to safely traffic in verified secrets, and responsibly see that those documents are distributed to journalists and the public, while at the same time protecting whistleblowers who often risk all to tell vital stories?
Yeah. We do. WikiLeaks promised all of that - and delivered none of it. And in failing so spectacularly, WikiLeaks almost assuredly discouraged those who would come to trust others with secret information.
Tonight, the Guardian's James Ball finally told the inside story of his three months as a WikiLeaks staffer during those tumultuous months after the cable leak was first made public. It's bravely told; Ball understands that he will come in for a tidal wave of opprobrium from the cohort of hard-core Assange fans who prowl Twitter and other forums. But even for this WikiLeaks completist (I continue to find the entire story fascinating) Ball's tale is pretty shocking:
I joined WikiLeaks last November as a staffer for a three-month stint. Culture shock came just a few days in, when Julian Assange gathered core staff and supporters at Ellingham Hall, a manor house owned by the Frontline Club founder and WikiLeaks supporter Vaughan Smith.

Around the dining table the team sketched out a plan for the coming months, to release the leaked US diplomatic cables selectively for maximum impact. Phase one would involve publishing selected – and carefully redacted – high-profile cables through the Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais. Phase two would spread this out to more media organisations.
But clearly a large volume of cables would remain, of little interest to any media organisation. Several at the meeting – myself included – stressed these documents, which would probably number hundreds of thousands, could not be published without similar careful redaction. Others vehemently disagreed.
Johannes Wahlström, Swedish journalist and son of antisemitic WikiLeaks activist Israel Shamir, shouted: "You do realise the idea of not putting ALL of these cables up is totally unacceptable to people around this table, don't you?"
Julian took Wahlström's their side. One way or another, he said, all the cables must eventually be made public.
Ball goes on to detail financial misdealing, psychological pressure, an atmosphere of total personal domination by Assange, allegations of providing assistance to the interior ministry of the repressive Belarus regime, and "a growing cultlike ethos at the centre of the group." Finally, he recounts conversations with activists and aid workers fearful that their cooperation with U.S. diplomats or other actors would come to light and endanger their work, and their lives.
Before the first publication of carefully redacted cables, human rights activists, NGOs, and organisations working with victims of horrific crimes contacted WikiLeaks begging us to take steps not to publish any names. To be able to assure them details would be protected was an immeasurable relief.
These cables contain details of activists, opposition politicians, bloggers in autocratic regimes and their real identities, victims of crime and political coercion, and others driven by conscience to speak to the US government. They should never have had to fear being exposed by a self-proclaimed human rights organisation.
Indeed. This is the end of WikiLeaks. The story of Julian Assange and the downfall of his organization remains a fascinating one - but it is not a story of transparency, of openness, or of an informed and empowered society.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

#Wikileaks #wlfind :WikiLeaks Revelation Damages U.S.-Iraq Talks On Keeping American Troops Past 2011

 McClatchy reported earlier this week that a recently released U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks shows evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians in 2006, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, and “then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence.” The Iraqi government said today that it will revive the stalled investigation into the allegations. The AP also reports that “some officials said that the document was reason enough for Iraq to force the American military to leave instead of signing a deal allowing troops to stay beyond a year-end departure deadline.” “The new report about this crime will have its impact on signing any new agreement,” said Sunni lawmaker Aliya Nusayif.

#Wikileaks releases entire archive of US cables.

#Greece: Greek Riots and how they affect US interests.

US embassy cable - 08ATHENS1692


Identifier: 08ATHENS1692
Origin: Embassy Athens
Created: 2008-12-18 13:00:00

DE RUEHTH #1692/01 3531300
O 181300Z DEC 08
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 ATHENS 001692 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/17/2018 
Classified By: Ambassador Daniel V. Speckhard for 1.4 (b) and (d) 
1.  (C) The riots that began in Greece following the December 
6 police shooting of a teenager have shocked even the most 
cynical of Greeks, and have resulted in hundreds of millions 
of Euros in economic damage.  The unrest has deeply polarized 
society, with youth of all socio-economic backgrounds 
generally supporting the demonstrations, and most people over 
thirty condemning the violence.  Although it is difficult to 
pinpoint the exact causes of the riots, major contributing 
factors included: 
-- the insular, hothouse atmosphere of Greece's few hundred 
ultra-radical "anarchists;" 
-- popular frustration with corruption and political leaders; 
-- the disillusionment of the youth, who see fewer economic 
opportunities than previous generations did; 
-- irresponsible and inflammatory media coverage branding the 
shooting as cold-blooded murder; 
-- demoralized Greek security forces, weakened by post-junta 
limits and public distrust; and 
-- popular sympathy (and in some cases nostalgia) for the 
radical left and public tolerance of expressions of 
opposition through violent means. 
2.  (C) The government response was characterized by PM 
Karamanlis' absence, and most government announcements were 
left to Minister of Interior Pavlopoulos.  The government 
apparently instructed the police to respond solely with a 
defensive posture.  We believe the Prime Minister wanted to 
avoid any additional deaths or any platform for grievances 
and negotiations with the authorities (such as an occupied 
government building).  Many Greeks believe the Karamanlis 
government mishandled the situation -- both by not taking a 
tougher stance against the violence but also by having 
allowed socioeconomic conditions to deteriorate.  Thus, most 
Greeks, including those who would normally be Karamanlis 
supporters, now believe it is only a matter of time before 
the PM has to call new elections, although Karamanlis appears 
resolutely opposed to doing so.  We expect the opposition to 
continue to press hard to bring down the government, and we 
expect the government to take steps to show leadership and 
action, including likely Cabinet changes. 
3.  (S) U.S. interests will be affected.  Constrained by the 
unrest, the Greek government will be even more 
inwardly-focused than usual.  Greece will likely be unwilling 
or unable to take bold actions on regional foreign policy 
issues, including the Macedonia name issue, relations with 
Turkey, or pressing the Greek Cypriots on negotiations in 
Cyprus.  The government bureaucracy, ever cautious, will 
become even more wary in the face of political uncertainty, 
making it harder to address other issues on our agenda, 
including commercial, educational, security, and human rights 
issues.  Finally, there are precedents in Greece for domestic 
terrorist groups to strike in the wake of major civil unrest, 
taking advantage of exhausted and demoralized security 
forces.  We will need to continue to monitor aggressively a 
potentially growing domestic terrorist threat.  End Summary. 
What Caused It? 
4.  (C) Although Greece is no stranger to demonstrations that 
include destruction of property, Molotov cocktails, and 
rioting, the riots that began on December 6 were 
qualitatively different.  Estimates are still pending, but 
the total bill is expected to amount to hundreds of millions 
of Euros in damage.  The rioting and demonstrations were not 
limited to Athens and Thessaloniki but took place throughout 
the country, including in normally quiet provincial centers. 
Also, although the violent demonstrations were initially the 
work of anarchists, thousands of university and high school 
students of both sexes eventually joined in.  Televised 
footage showed youths as young as 13 throwing rocks at police. 
5. (C) Reports by major foreign news organizations 
highlighted problems in the Greek economy as a cause of the 
rioting, and these problems certainly played a role.  Like 
other smaller European economies, Greece is being affected by 
the global downturn.  Its two leading industries -) shipping 
and tourism -) already are feeling the impact of the credit 
ATHENS 00001692  002 OF 004 
contraction and weakening consumer demand.  GDP growth, 
relatively strong in recent years (4 percent in 2007), has 
slowed in 2008 (the government projection is for 3.2 
percent), and is expected to decelerate further in 2009 (the 
government projection is for 2.7 percent, but private 
analysts, including the IMF, project a lower 2.0 percent 
growth rate).  Unemployment, especially amongst the young, is 
rising, and about a fifth of the population now lives below 
the official poverty line.  Unemployment numbers are likely 
to spike as the economic slowdown hits Greece's real economy 
in the new year.  But even before the current global 
downturn, the Greek economy suffered from structural problems 
including a rigid labor market and a large public share of 
the economy that limited its flexibility, discouraged 
innovation, and stymied expansion.  Greece, indeed, has many 
of the elements of a corporatist system, in which a 
relatively small group of well-known families control 
economic and political centers of power.  Corruption and 
connections, rather than entrepreneurship and innovation, are 
seen as the keys to getting ahead.  Greece is considered an 
unattractive place to work and invest, ranking 96th -) the 
lowest in the EU -) in the World Bank's "doing business" 
6.  (C) The Karamanlis government came to power in 2004 with 
a reformist agenda, but has met with resistance from 
entrenched interests and members of the public -- all for 
reform as long as it does not reduce their own individual 
perks.  Moreover, the Karamanlis government has been plagued 
by its own corruption scandals, including the current 
Vatopedion monastery affair, which brought down some of the 
Prime Minister's closest advisors. 
7.  (C) Problems in the economy and governance have led to 
widespread social dissatisfaction and a sense that economic 
opportunities, for the first time in a generation, are 
contracting.  These frustrations contributed to the recent 
rioting and fostered an attitude of tolerance amongst much of 
the general public for the youthful "victims" of a government 
and society unresponsive to their needs.  At the same time, 
(!QQQ%Q$ Q% Q(!Q$$ "!Q overestimate the role Q$!Q$$ "QQQQ%Q"!%Q  "! SysQ%! 
 R! Qarch(QQQQ "QQQ$Q)  Q%Q(!Qp several 
hundred and th! Q !"QQeeks are wary of the 
QQQ !! !"  QQ!QQQQQ QQQQ!aes because of their abQQ!Q!"QQQ!QQ!Q and entitlement.  The "!!QQQQ QQQQQQQQQQ!Q Q)QQ(" Q$ 
proscribed period du! Q! Q!"QQ! Q ) Q%Qpuptions.  University 
"asylum" policies prohibit state security forces from 
entering campuses without permission from university 
administrators (granted very rarely), adding to the 
ideologically charged atmosphere of "anything goes." 
9. (C) The anarchists, headquartered at the Athens 
Polytechnic, have escalated their violence in recent years. 
Many observers believe that this trend was a concerted 
attempt to provoke the police into a disproportionate 
response, in turn sparking an even broader "uprising."  The 
anarchists appeared to get what they wanted in the December 6 
ATHENS 00001692  003 OF 004 
shooting of Grigoropoulos, and they used blogs and SMSes to 
spread the news and mobilize their forces.  As anarchist 
violence escalated, other university and eventually high 
school and even middle school students, some disgruntled, 
others attracted by the radical chic, joined in. 
Dinosaurs of the Hard Left 
10. (C) Exacerbating the unrest was the opportunism of the 
leftist political parties.  Unlike their counterparts in many 
other European countries, the leftist parties of Greece have 
not evolved with the fall of the Berlin Wall, further EU 
integration, and economic globalization.  The ideology, 
tactics, and goals of the Greek "hard left" remain much as 
they were during the Cold War, and these parties have served 
as a retiring ground for many aging anarchists.  Reflecting 
the ideological divisions of an earlier era, the left remains 
divided between the orthodox Marxist-Leninist, Soviet-style 
Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and the new left SYRIZA 
party, which has taken up the slogans and mindset of 
anti-globalization while retaining a loyalty to Marxism. 
Both the KKE and SYRIZA supported the recent demonstrations 
in an effort to further discredit the government.   While the 
KKE publicly supported only peaceful, disciplined 
demonstrations, however, SYRIZA more openly egged anarchists 
and students on to violent action. 
Irresponsible Press 
11. (C) Finally, the Greek press had a role in aggravating 
the riots.  Most Greek media carried breathless reports 
seemingly aimed at inflaming and not calming the situation. 
Media hyperbole helped trample the principle of "innocent 
until proven guilty" in the court of public opinion, with 
many journalists reporting that the accused police officer 
had fired on Grigoropoulos in cold blood, although government 
officials made similar statements.  Police explanations that 
the shooting may have been accidental were derisively 
What Did the Government Do About It? 
12.  (C) One of the most striking aspects of the events was 
the Prime Minister's absence; Karamanlis stayed largely out 
of the public eye, leaving public statements to his Minister 
of Interior, Prokopis Pavlopoulos.  At the height of the 
violence, Karamanlis made just two short television 
appearances -- calling for calm in the one and laying out a 
technocratic, detailed plan for government assistance to 
affected businesses in the other. 
13.  (C) The police generally did not respond assertively to 
the violence and instead assumed a defensive posture.  We 
assess that there are two explanations: 
-- Initial Indecision:  Initially taken by surprise, the 
government took the populist road, not wanting to be seen as 
"fascists," and thus did not direct the police to clamp down. 
-- Avoid Any Additional Deaths and Deny Anarchists a 
Platform:  As the riots worsened, however, we assess that 
Karamanlis and his advisors calculated that he must first and 
foremost avoid the possibility of any additional deaths that 
could fuel greater unrest.  At the same time, greater force 
was apparently authorized to allow police to ensure that the 
protestors did not occupy government buildings or significant 
landmarks that could be used as a basis for a prolonged 
public platform for grievances and negotiations with the 
authorities.  The police were clearly operating under 
different rules of engagement when defending the Parliament 
or the Foreign Ministry, than the commercial establishments 
next door. 
What Does It Mean? 
14.  (C) Weaker Government:  While the long-term implications 
for Karamanlis are unclear, for now many Greeks believe the 
PM and his government severely mishandled the situation. 
ATHENS 00001692  004 OF 004 
Most, including those who would normally be Karamanlis 
supporters, are openly stating that it is only a matter of 
time before the PM has to call new elections.  Conventional 
wisdom holds that these events are a final "mortal blow" that 
comes on the heels of other political crises, scandals, and 
the global economic crisis.  The opposition, criticizing the 
government's response, called for the government to step 
down, and we expect these calls to grow louder, particularly 
if the unrest continues.  The opposition is smelling blood. 
That said, it is impossible to predict exactly when this shoe 
might drop.  If/when the government does fall will depend 
less on the opposition and more on dissent within the 
government's own ranks.  We expect the government to take 
steps to show leadership and action, including likely Cabinet 
15.  (C) Our Interests:  In short, the Karamanlis government 
will be even more inward-looking than before, and it will be 
either unwilling or unable to take bold actions or be out of 
sync with popular sentiments on key regional foreign policy 
issues.  This means that the Greek government will likely 
take defensive positions on the Macedonia name issue and 
relations with Turkey.  It will also likely eschew any troop 
deployments that could open it up to criticism -- such as 
sending significantly increased numbers to Afghanistan. 
Greek politicians will also be unwilling to be out of sync 
with the Greek Cypriot leadership, and therefore loathe to 
press them on any aspect of the current negotiations.  The 
ever-cautious Greek bureaucracy will, in the face of 
political uncertainty, become even more risk adverse, making 
it harder to address other issues on our agenda, such as 
commercial, educational, security, and human rights issues. 
Finally, should rumors of a cabinet reshuffle or early 
elections grow stronger, FM Bakoyannis may be seen by her 
interlocutors as a potential "lame duck" as she takes on the 
role of OSCE Chairman-in-Office in January. 
16.  (S) Terrorism:  Most importantly, we will need to 
monitor aggressively the growing domestic terrorist threat. 
Following the public outrage that resulted from the 1985 
killing of a youth by police, the November 17 terrorist group 
entered a renewed operational phase and carried out 
additional attacks against Greek, U.S., and other targets. 
We will need to sharpen our vigilance to defend ourselves and 
to encourage a robust Greek response to terrorism in the face 
of exhausted and demoralized security services, popular 
dissatisfaction and angst, and a government that will 
undoubtedly have its attention focused elsewhere. 

#Wikileaks criticised over release of uncensored cables.

#Guardian LOGO on #Cablegate password dispenser.

Above: "@Guardian Logo on #Cablegate Password Dispenser", found art, Nigel Parry, 2011.

#Wikileaks:Shocking revelations revealed in diplomatic cables..

#Guardian / #Wikileaks myths and Glenn Greenwald

Facts and myths in the WikiLeaks/Guardian saga
AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange talks to members of the media during a news conference in central London, Thursday, July 14, 2011.
(updated below)

A series of unintentional though negligent acts by multiple parties -- WikiLeaks, The Guardian's investigative reporter David Leigh, and Open Leaks' Daniel Domscheit-Berg -- has resulted in the publication of all 251,287 diplomatic cables, in unredacted form, leaked last year to WikiLeaks (allegedly by Bradley Manning).  Der Spiegel (in English) has the best and most comprehensive step-by-step account of how this occurred. 

This incident is unfortunate in the extreme for multiple reasons: it's possible that diplomatic sources identified in the cables (including whistleblowers and human rights activists) will be harmed; this will be used by enemies of transparency and WikiLeaks to disparage both and even fuel efforts to prosecute the group; it implicates a newspaper, The Guardian, that generally produces very good and responsible journalism; it likely increases political pressure to impose more severe punishment on Bradley Manning if he's found guilty of having leaked these cables; and it will completely obscure the already-ignored, important revelations of serious wrongdoing from these documents.  It's a disaster from every angle.  But as usual with any controversy involving WikiLeaks, there are numerous important points being willfully distorted that need clarification.

Let's begin with the revelations that are being ignored and obscured by this controversy.  Several days ago, WikiLeaks compiled a list of 30 significant revelations from the newly released cables, and that was when only a fraction of them had been published; there are surely many more now, including ones still undiscovered in the trove of documents (here's just one example).  The cable receiving the most attention thus far -- first reported by John Glaser of -- details a "heinous war crime [by U.S forces] during a house raid in Iraq in 2006, wherein one man, four women, two children, and three infants were summarily executed" and their house thereafter blown up by a U.S. airstrike in order to destroy the evidence.  Back in 2006, the incident was discussed in American papers as a mere unproven "allegation" ("Regardless of which account is correct . . "), and the U.S. military (as usual) cleared itself of any and all wrongdoing.  But the cable contains evidence vesting the allegations of Iraqis with substantial credibility, and that, in turn, has now prompted this:

Iraqi government officials say they will investigate newly surfaced allegations that U.S. soldiers shot women and children, then tried to cover it up with an airstrike, during a 2006 hunt for insurgents.
An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Ali Al-Moussawi, said Friday the government will revive its stalled probe now that new information about the March 15, 2006, raid has come to light.

As usual, many of those running around righteously condemning WikiLeaks for the potential, prospective, unintentional harm to innocents caused by this leak will have nothing to say about these actual, deliberate acts of wanton slaughter by the U.S.  The accidental release of these unredacted cables will receive far more attention and more outrage than the extreme, deliberate wrongdoing these cables expose.  That's because many of those condemning WikiLeaks care nothing about harm to civilians as long as it's done by the U.S. government and military; indeed, such acts are endemic to the American wars they routinely cheer onWhat they actually hate is transparency and exposure of wrongdoing by their government; "risk to civilians" is just the pretext for attacking those, such as WikiLeaks, who bring that about. 

That said, and as many well-intentioned transparency supporters correctly point out, WikiLeaks deserves some of the blame for what happened here; any group that devotes itself to enabling leaks has the responsibility to safeguard what it receives and to do everything possible to avoid harm to innocent people.  Regardless of who is at fault -- more on that in a minute -- WikiLeaks, due to insufficient security measures, failed to fulfill that duty here.  There's just no getting around that (although ultimate responsibility for safeguarding the identity of America's diplomatic sources rests with the U.S. Government, which is at least as guilty as WikiLeaks in failing to exerise due care to safeguard these cables; if this information is really so sensitive and one wants to blame someone for inadequate security measures, start with the U.S. Government, which gave full access to these documents to hundreds of thousands of people around the world, at least).

Despite the fault fairly assigned to WikiLeaks, one point should be absolutely clear: there was nothing intentional about WikiLeaks' publication of the cables in unredacted form.  They ultimately had no choice.  Ever since WikiLekas was widely criticized (including by me) for publishing Afghan War documents without redacting the names of some sources (though much blame also lay with the U.S. Government for rebuffing its request for redaction advice), the group has been meticulous about protecting the identity of innocents.  The New York Times' Scott Shane today describes "efforts by WikiLeaks and journalists to remove the names of vulnerable people in repressive countries" in subsequent releases; indeed, WikiLeaks "used software to remove proper names from Iraq war documents and worked with news organizations to redact the cables."  After that Afghan release, the group has demonstrated a serious, diligent commitment to avoiding pointless exposure of innocent people -- certainly far more care than the U.S. Government took in safeguarding these documents.

What happened here was that their hand was forced by the reckless acts of The Guardian's Leigh and Domscheit-Berg.  One key reason access to these unredacted cables was so widely distributed is that Leigh -- in his December, 2010, book about the work he did with WikiLeaks -- published the password to these files, which was given to him by Julian Assange to enable his reporting on the cables.  Leigh claims -- and there's no reason to doubt him -- that he believed the password was only valid for a few days and would have expired by the time his book was published. 

That belief turned out to be false because the files had been disseminated on the BitTorrent file sharing network, with that password embedded in them; Leigh's publication of the WikiLeaks password in his book thus enabled widespread access to the full set of cables.  But the key point is this: even if Leigh believed that that particular password would no longer be valid, what possible point is there in publishing to the world the specific password used by WikiLeaks or divulging the types of passwords it uses to safeguard its data?  It is reckless for an investigative reporter to gratuitously publish that type of information, and he absolutely deserves a large chunk of the blame for what happened here; read this superb analysis by Nigel Parry to see the full scope of Leigh's culpability.

Then there is Domscheit-Berg and "Open Leaks." Last year, Domscheit-Berg left WikiLeaks and started a new group to great media fanfare, even though his group has not produced a single disclosure.  Instead, he and his thus-far-inaccurately-named group seem devoted to only two goals: (1) cashing in on a vindictive, petty, personality-based vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks; and (2) bolstering secrecy and destroying transparency, as Domscheit-Berg did when he permanently deleted thousands of files previously leaked to WikiLeaks, including documents relating to the Bank of America.  It was Domscheit-Berg who removed the files from the WikiLeaks server, including (apparently unbeknownst to him) the full set of diplomatic cables.

That act by Domscheit-Berg, combined with the publication of its password by Leigh and the dissemination of the files to "mirror sites" by well-intentioned WikiLeaks supporters after cyber-attacks on the group, all combined to enable widespread, unfettered access to these diplomatic cables.  Once WikiLeaks realized what had happened, they notified the State Department, but faced a quandary: virtually every government's intelligence agencies would have had access to these documents as a result of these events, but the rest of the world -- including journalists, whistleblowers and activists identified in the documents -- did not.  At that point, WikiLeaks decided -- quite reasonably -- that the best and safest course was to release all the cables in full, so that not only the world's intelligence agencies but everyone had them, so that steps could be taken to protect the sources and so that the information in them was equally available.

Serious caution is warranted in making claims about the damage caused by publication of these cables.  Recall that Adm. Michael Mullen and others accused WikiLeaks of having "blood on its hands" as a result of publication of the Afghan War documents, but that turned out to be totally false; as Shane noted today in the NYT: "no consequence more serious than dismissal from a job has been reported."  Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates mocked claims about the damage done by WikiLeaks as "significantly overwrought."

That said, there's little doubt that release of all these documents in unredacted form poses real risk to some of the individuals identified in them, and that is truly lamentable.  But it is just as true that WikiLeaks easily remains an important force for good.  The acts of deliberate evil committed by the world's most powerful factions which it has exposed vastly outweigh the mistakes which this still-young and pioneering organization has made.  And the harm caused by corrupt, excessive secrecy easily outweighs the harm caused by unauthorized, inadvisable leaks.

UPDATE:  Several noteworthy points that have arisen from the discussion in the comment section (which is particularly worth reading today) and elsewhere: 

(1) David Leigh appears in the comment section and responds, though he doesn't really address any of the criticisms I voiced; my reply to him is here

(2) the information contained in the cable about the killings in Iraq was actually published previously in this report, though the WikiLeaks release has obviously drawn substantially more attention to it, as evidenced by the reaction of the Iraqi Government (on a positive note, it's very possible that the attention being drawn to this incident may thwart the Obama administration's efforts to have Iraq agree to keeping U.S. troops in that country beyond the 2011 deadline, as citizens tend to get angry when foreign armies murder their fellow citizens in cold blood and then air-attack the house where it happened to destroy the evidence);

(3) in terms of assessing harm from publication of the cables, recall -- as several commenters noted -- that the U.S. Government has known about the leak of these cables for more than a year and thus had ample time to warn anyone identified in them of this risk; that doesn't excuse any wrongdoing, but it does reduce the likelihood of serious harm; and,

(4) one of the newly released cables reveal that Israel, according to what it told the U.S., attacked what it claims were Hamas members in Gaza with drones, and accidentally killed 16 people inside a mosque during prayer time.  You won't hear very many people condemning WikiLeaks for "putting civilians at risk" devote much of their attention to this revelation either.

#Australia #Wikileaks : Statement from the Attorney-General Robert McClelland

Release of unredacted classified material

2 September 2011

It appears that a very significant number of US classified cables held by WikiLeaks have been distributed across the internet over the past 48 hours.
On occasions before this week, WikiLeaks redacted identifying features where the safety of individuals or national security could be put at risk. 

It appears this hasn’t occurred with documents that have been distributed across the internet this week and this is extremely concerning. 

I am advised that many of these documents contain identifying information.   I am aware of at least one cable in which an ASIO officer is purported to have been identified, as reported in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age today.
ASIO and other Government agencies officers are working through the material to see the extent of the impact on Australian interests.

I will not provide a running commentary on WikiLeaks, however this disturbing development confirms the Government’s position regarding WikiLeaks and others disseminating classified material. 

In the modern age of global electronic communications, this material may be available on a number of sites on the internet.

I am confident Australian media outlets will exercise caution in identifying individuals or reproducing information that could put their safety at risk. 
This prudence was exercised in relation to stories published today in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspaper. 

Section 92 of the ASIO Act makes it a crime to publish, or cause to be published, the identity of an ASIO Officer.

Media Contact:  Ryan Liddell   (02) 6277 7300 or 0427 225 763.

#Guardian Editor David Leigh publishes top secret Cablegate password !

Guardian Investigative Editor David Leigh publishes top secret Cablegate password revealing names of U.S. collaborators and informants... in his book

The UK's Guardian newspaper's Investigative Editor, David Leigh, author of the "Get this Wikileaks book out the door quickly before other Wikileaks books are published" Wikileaks book has messed up.

And when I say "messed up", I mean that Mr. Leigh let slip the top secret password revealing the names of U.S. collaborators around the world—information now freely available to all the enemies of the U.S.

And when I say "let slip", I mean that David Leigh published the password as a chapter heading in his book, "WIKILEAKS: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy" article in full.

#GUARDIAN journalist negligent...


A Guardian journalist has negligently disclosed top secret WikiLeaks’ decryption passwords to hundreds of thousands of unredacted unpublished US diplomatic cables.

Knowledge of the Guardian disclosure has spread privately over several months but reached critical mass last week. The unpublished WikiLeaks’ material includes over 100,000 classified unredacted cables that were being analyzed, in parts, by over 50 media and human rights organizations from around the world.

For the past month WikiLeaks has been in the unenviable position of not being able to comment on what has happened, since to do so would be to draw attention to the decryption passwords in the Guardian book. Now that the connection has been made public by others we can explain what happened and what we intend to do.

WikiLeaks has commenced pre-litigation action against the Guardian and an individual in Germany who was distributing the Guardian passwords for personal gain.

Over the past nine months, WikiLeaks has been releasing US diplomatic cables according to a carefully laid out plan to stimulate profound changes. A number of human rights groups, including Amnesty International, believe that the co-ordinated release of the cables contributed to triggering the Arab Spring. By forming partnerships with over 90 other media and human rights organizations WikiLeaks has been laying the ground for positive political change all over the world.

The WikiLeaks method involves a sophisticated procedure of packaging leaked US diplomatic cables up into country groups or themes, such as ’resources corruption’, and providing it to those organizations that agreed to do the most research in exchange for time-limited exclusivity. As part of the WikiLeaks agreement, these groups, using their local knowledge, remove the names of persons reporting unjust acts to US embassies, and feed the results back to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks then publishes, simultaneously with its partners, the underlying cables together with the politically explosive revelations. This way publications that are too frightened to publish the cables have the proof they need, and the public can check to make sure the claims are accurate.
Over time WikiLeaks has been building up, and publishing, the complete Cablegate "library"—the most significant political document ever published. The mammoth task of reading and lightly redacting what amounts to 3,000 volumes or 284 million words of global political history is shared by WikiLeaks and its partners. That careful work has been compromised as a result of the recklessness of the Guardian.

Revolutions and reforms are in danger of being lost as the unpublished cables spread to intelligence contractors and governments before the public. The Arab Spring would not have started in the manner it did if the Tunisian government of Ben Ali had copies of those WikiLeaks releases which helped to take down his government. Similarly, it is possible that the torturing Egyptian internal security chief, Suleiman—Washington’s proposed replacement for Mubarak—would now be the acting ruler of Egypt, had he acquired copies of the cables that exposed his methods prior to their publication.

Indeed, it is one of the indelible stains on Hillary Clinton that she personally set course to forewarn dozens of corrupt leaders, including Hosni Mubarak, about some of the most powerful details of WikiLeaks’ revelations to come.
Every day that the corrupt leadership of a country or organization knows of a pending WikiLeaks disclosure is a day spent planning how to crush revolution and reform.

Guardian investigations editor, David Leigh, recklessly, and without gaining our approval, knowingly disclosed the decryption passwords in a book published by the Guardian. Leigh states the book was rushed forward to be written in three weeks—the rights were then sold to Hollywood.
The following extract is from the Guardian book:

Leigh tried his best not to fall out with this Australian impresario, who was prone to criticise what he called the “snaky Brits”. Instead, Leigh used his ever-shifting demands as a negotiating lever. “You want us to postpone the Iraq logs’ publication so you can get some TV,” he said. [WikiLeaks: We required more time for redactions and to complete three Iraq war documentaries commissioned through the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The documentaries were syndicated through Channel 4 (UK) and al Jazeera English and Arabic] “We could refuse, and simply go ahead with publication as planned. If you want us to do something for you, then you’ve got to do something for us as well.” He asked Assange to stop procrastinating, and hand over the biggest trove of all: the cables. Assange said, “I could give you half of them, covering the first 50% of the period.”
Leigh refused. All or nothing, he said. “What happens if you end up in an orange jump-suit en route to Guantánamo before you can release the full files?” In return he would give Assange a promise to keep the cables secure, and not to publish them until the time came. Assange had always been vague about timing: he generally indicated, however, that October would be a suitable date. He believed the US army’s charges against the imprisoned soldier Bradley Manning would have crystallised by then, and publication could not make his fate any worse. He also said, echoing Leigh’s gallows humour: “I’m going to need to be safe in Cuba first!” Eventually, Assange capitulated. Late at night, after a two-hour debate, he started the process on one of his little netbooks that would enable Leigh to download the entire tranche of cables. The Guardian journalist had to set up the PGP encryption system on his laptop at home across the other side of London. Then he could feed in a password. Assange wrote down on a scrap of paper:
[WikiLeaks: we have replaced the password with Xs] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“That’s the password,” he said. “But you have to add one extra word when you type it in. You have to put in the word ‘XXXXXXX’ before the word ‘XXXXXX’ [WikiLeaks: so if the paper were seized, the password would not work without Leigh’s co-operation] Can you remember that?” “I can remember that.” Leigh set off home, and successfully installed the PGP software.

The Guardian disclosure is a violation of the confidentiality agreement between WikiLeaks and Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, signed July 30, 2010. David Leigh is also Alan Rusbridger’s brother in law, which has caused other Guardian journalists to claim that David Leigh has been unfairly protected from the fallout. It is not the first time the WikiLeaks security agreement has been violated by the Guardian.

WikiLeaks severed future projects with the Guardian in December last year after it was discovered that the Guardian was engaged in a conspiracy to publish the cables without the knowledge of WikiLeaks, seriously compromising the security of our people in the United States and an alleged source who was in pre-trial detention. Leigh, without any basis, and in a flagrant violation of journalistic ethics, named Bradley Manning as the Cablegate source in his book. David Leigh secretly passed the entire archive to Bill Keller of the New York Times, in September 2011, or before, knowingly destroying WikiLeaks plans to publish instead with the Washington Post & McClatchy.

David Leigh and the Guardian have subsequently and repeatedly violated WikiLeaks security conditions, including our requirements that the unpublished cables be kept safe from state intelligence services by keeping them only on computers not connected to the internet. Ian Katz, Deputy Editor of the Guardian admitted in December 2010 meeting that this condition was not being followed by the Guardian.

PJ Crowley, State Department spokesman on the cables issue earlier this year, told AP on the 30th of August, 2011 that “any autocratic security service worth its salt” would probably already have the complete unredacted archive.
Two weeks ago, when it was discovered that information about the Leigh book had spread so much that it was about to be published in the German weekly Freitag, WikiLeaks took emergency action, asking the editor not allude to the Leigh book, and tasked its lawyers to demand those maliciously spreading its details about the Leigh book stop.

WikiLeaks advanced its regular publication schedule, to get as much of the material as possible into the hands of journalists and human rights lawyers who need it. WikiLeaks and its partners were scheduled to have published most of the Cablegate material by November 29, 2011 – one year since the first publication. Over the past week, we have published over 130,000 cables, mostly unclassified. The cables have lead to hundreds of important news stories around the world. All were unclassified with the exception of the Australian, Swedish collections, and a few others, which were scheduled by our partners.

WikiLeaks has also been in contact with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty at a senior level. We contacted the US embassy in London and then the State Department in Washington on 25 August to see if their informant notification program, instituted last year, was complete, and if not, to take such steps as would be helpful. Only after repeated attempts through high level channels and 36 hours after our first contact, did the State Department, although it had been made aware of the issue, respond. Cliff Johnson (a legal advisor at the Department of State) spoke to Julian Assange for 75 minutes, but the State Department decided not to meet in person to receive further information, which could not, at that stage, be safely transmitted over the telephone....for references please go to link