Author Topic: Propaganda in Grey or Black: Vendetta vs WikiLeaks, the 'Liberal' Press and...  (Read 2091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Guest
Interesting Analysis... including info on the "Israel Shamir related issues" - Here to be read:


Mirrors of Distortion - Cases of the Old Media

Propaganda in Grey or Black: Vendetta against WikiLeaks, the 'Liberal' Press and Films that Threaten History

The Guardian, 31st January 2011: Holocaust denier in charge of handling Moscow cables. Extract from WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy discloses the antics of Israel Shamir, who pilloried the Swedish women who complained of rape. • Buy WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy by David Leigh, Luke Harding here (see original source: )

He was introduced as the father of Assange's Swedish crony, journalist Johannes Wahlström, and took away copies of cables from Russia and post-Soviet states. According to one insider, he also demanded copies of cables about "the Jews". This WikiLeaks associate was better known as Israel Shamir.

Subsequently, Shamir appeared in Moscow. According to a reporter on Russian paper Kommersant, he was offering to sell articles based on the cables for $10,000 (£6,300). He had already passed some to the state-backed publication Russian Reporter. He travelled on to Belarus, ruled by the Soviet-style dictator Alexander Lukashenko, where he met regime officials. The Russian Interfax News Agency reported that Shamir was WikiLeaks' "Russian representative", and had "confirmed the existence of the Belarus dossier".

Liberal Conspiracy, 1st March 2011: Assange goes off deep end – blaming Jews and Guardian in Private Eye. This is published in the latest edition of Private Eye (buy a copy!). The article is titled ‘A Curious Conversation With Mr Assange’ and it is the phone version of a horrible car crash. (hat-tip @jamesrbuk)

Unabashed by this error [Assange] went on to say that we were part of a conspiracy led by The Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom “are Jewish”. I pointed out that Rusbridger is not actually Jewish, but Assange insisted that he was “sort of Jewish” because he was related to David Leigh (they are brother-in-laws).

James Ball (@jamesrbuk) is a former City University student of David Leigh's who is The Guardian's investigations executive editor:
And who supplied Israel Shamir with the 'Minsk / Lukashenko cables'?

[the related screenshots can be seen in the original link: ]

What does Israel Shamir say about James Ball and the 'Minsk / Lukashenko cables'?

One of [James Ball's] favourite routes is attacking Assange for associating with me, and today he did it again in The Guardian, responding to my recent piece Unmanning the Man. His arguments are repetitious, baseless and lame: I am called "anti-Semite", "H-denier" and "the man who gave the State Department secrets to Lukashenko" time and again.

"Shamir asked for access to all cable material concerning "the Jews", a request which was refused", says Ball. Oh no, James! That was before your switching sides, and you dutifully obliged. You did it even twice: just before my departure you came to me on your own initiative and kindly handed me "a better file on Jews", twice as big as the previous one. Apparently lying and cheating is your second nature by now.

As my readers know, my view on "antisemitism and H-denial" was expressed many times, and it is available on my and other websites, namely

"I wrote hundreds of pages on the Jewish topic, but for the benefit of the reader I’ll sum it up. Naturally, as a son of Jewish parents and a man living in the Jewish state and deeply and intimately involved with Jewish culture, I harbour no hate to a Jew because he is a Jew. I doubt many people do. However I did and do criticise various aspects of Jewish Weltanschauung like so many Jewish and Christian thinkers before me, or even more so for I witnessed crimes of the Jewish state that originated in this worldview.

As for the accusation of “Holocaust denial”, my family lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy, but I do deny its religious salvific significance implied in the very term ‘Holocaust’; I do deny its metaphysical uniqueness, I do deny the morbid cult of Holocaust and I think every God-fearing man, a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim should reject it as Abraham rejected and smashed idols. I deny that it is good to remember or immortalise such traumatic events, and I wrote many articles against modern obsession with massacres, be it the Jewish Holocaust of the 1940s, Armenian massacre of 1915, Ukrainian “holodomor”, Polish Katyn, Khmer Rouge etc. Poles, Armenians, Ukrainians understood me, so did Jews – otherwise I would be charged with the crime of factual denial which is known to the Israeli law.

As for "giving unredacted files" topic, this is a rather silly claim to be published in The Guardian since this newspaper published the password to the whole lot. Moreover, their "redaction" of the cables distorted the meaning and safeguarded interests of British companies and American officials.

New Statesman, 1st March 2012: Julian Assange and Europe's Last Dictator. The former WikiLeaks chief [Assange] will moderate a public discussion about Belarus, despite damaging the cau by Kapil Komireddi.

In December 2010, Israel Shamir, a WikiLeaks associate and an intimate friend of Julian Assange - so close, in fact, that he outed the Swedish women who claim to be victims of rape and sexual assault by Assange - allegedly travelled to Belarus with a cache of unredacted American diplomatic cables concerning the country. He reportedly met Lukashenko's chief of staff, Vladimir Makei, handed over the documents to the government, and stayed in the country to "observe" the presidential elections.


Israel Shamir never had "a role" in WikiLeaks, any more than any of the other dozens of journalists who received a selection of the cables to work on. He had a total of one or two meetings with them, in the same way other freelance journalists did. He was handed an additional batch of cables on "the Jews" (James Ball's wording for the Minsk and Moscow cables) by James Ball, then-WikiLeaks intern (of two months) / Guardian mole, and one month later full-time Guardian journalist / apprentice to chief architect of The Guardian's anti-Assange smear campaigns David Leigh. James Ball did this of his own volition, despite his much-delayed (May 2012) claims that he "was only following orders". The exaggerated role of Israel Shamir in WikiLeaks is an invention of The Guardian (Andrew Brown, 17th December 2010), this allegation / distortion originated there and was then placed in Index on Censorship, New Statesman, and elsewhere.

There is absolutely no evidence that Israel Shamir gave inappropraite cables to Lukashenko. The Guardian's 'source', the Interfax News Agency, might well have every reason to attack someone handing highly damaging cables to Minsk and Moscow's mainstream and opposition media outlets, but why doesn't The Guardian mention this?

There are two Interfax articles that act as The Guardian's sources for these allegations, both dated 19th December 2010. The Interfax-West does not mention Lukashenko, let alone the so called "Belarus dossier" being handed over to "regime officials". The other, Interfax-Russia, does:

Minsk. December 19. INTERFAX.RU - Head of Administration of the current president of Belarus Vladimir MacKay met with attorney website WikiLeaks founder Israel Shamir.

Photojournalist portal managed to photograph on the steps of the presidential administration, the only Russian-speaking accredited journalist at the site WikiLeaks Israel Shamir, who had come to Belarus to observe the presidential elections in the country on December 19.

The presidential administration declined to comment on the substance of a conversation Mackey and attorney Assange. However, given that the Russian media has already started to spread information about the location on the website WikiLeaks data secret correspondence of the U.S. State Department regarding Alexander Lukashenko's position on the war in Georgia and the gas pipeline "Nord Stream", we can assume that the conversation was about WikiLeaks Belarusian dossier.

In an interview to "Interfax-West" Shamir confirmed the existence of the "Belarus dossier". According to him, the website WikiLeaks has several thousands of classified documents, which are to some extent related to Belarus. He added that "the Belarusian dossier is written by Americans. There may be some interesting things."

This photo ( original link: ) is Interfax-Russia's 'evidence'. It shows Shamir on the steps of the Belarus Presidential Administation Building in Minsk (Israel Shamir's family comes from Minsk, his mother Minsker, lived there until 22nd June 1941 and then moved to Siberia). This is the totality of the evidence against Israel Shamir. Despite there being no evidence or sources of any kind contained within Interfax-Russia's 'expose', it is reported in The Guardian as fact. Perhaps the pro-Israeli blog by Adam Holland is Interfax-Russia's and The Guradian's actual source: 'Meanwhile in Belarus..' 19th December 2010?

President Aleksandr Lukashenko election farce also occured on the 19th December 2010, making it an interesting date for these stories to emerge. What happened to Israel Shamir's "Belarus dossier" that The Guardian says was given to Uladzimri Makei, chief aide to Lukashenko, who used it to arrest protestors in the aftermath of the 19th December? The cables had already been disseminated to media outlet weeks before the election. Everybody had already seen the cables that WikiLeaks had authorised to be released; journalists, readers and therefore also the security services. The whole "Belarus dossier" affair is childish nonsense. Charter 97, a Belarusian citizens' human rights organisation had been publishing the cables throughout this period, publishing them whilst under attack from Lukashenko's government, whose State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus raided their office on the 21st December.

What story was Charter 97 running on the same day as the Adam Holland article? Makei afraid of Assange’s files 19th December. Other "Belarus dossier" cable stories published by Charter 97: WikiLeaks describes Belarus as a virtual “mafia state” 2nd December. WikiLeaks: Lukashenka can't be corrected 18th December. WikiLeaks: Lukashenka's fortune estimated at 9 billion USD 18th December. All of these articles came out before Israel Shamir travelled to Belarus.

Moscow Times journalist Vladimir Shpak has also confirmed that Israel Shamir was not Russian Reporter's and other outlets' only conduit to WikiLeaks cables. However, Shamir was the most visible and, with his hyperbolic pro-Palestinian - anti-Israeli stance and professional controversialist buffoonery, he made a compellingly easy target upon which to redirect the cables story. Both Minsk and Moscow (Putin Bristles Over Leaked U.S. Cables, 10th December 2010) would have been increasingly keen to counteract the flow of bad puiblicity stemming from the cables and in the Belarus post-election crackdown - destroying the reputation of the cables could prove critical to the regime's aim to shattered hope.

It is informative that Andrei Sannikov's (the opposition leader jailed by Lukashenko) sister and main spokesperson of the Free Belarus campaign, Irina, invited Julian Assange to the screening and audience Q&A of the campaign's film "Europe's Last Dictator". According to the director, Julian Assange helped facilitate the making of the film and has been helping the Belarussan dissidents behind the scenes for a number of years. All this is verifiable but you won't find anything about it in the The Guardian, New Statesman or Index on Censorship.

Regarding Ian Hislop's Private Eye, Liberal Conspiracy, The Guardian smear. Julian Assange responds: "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction."

For contrast it is worth noting that on the 15th August 2012, The Guardian announced the hiring of Joshua Treviño as a correspondent with the paper's US politics team, an individual who likes to tweet, "Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla - well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me." And, "Not morally different from a Nazi convoy, is it? RT @KurtSchlichter: Sink the #flotilla. Enough screwing around with these psychos." And so on - ad infinitum. When questioned about this matter The Guardian put out a statement, "We look forward to the open and robust debate that we are sure will follow between Josh and Guardian readers."

What does WikiLeaks have to say about Israel Shamir? Their statement is as follows:

On Tuesday 1st March 2011,

WikiLeaks statement that was given to, but not used by, the UK satirical current-affairs magazine, Private Eye:

Israel Shamir has never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so. He is not an 'agent' of WikiLeaks. He has never been an employee of WikiLeaks and has never received monies from WikiLeaks or given monies to WikiLeaks or any related organization or individual. However, he has worked for the BBC, Haaretz, and many other reputable organizations.

It is false that Shamir is 'an Assange intimate'. He interviewed Assange (on behalf of Russian media), as have many journalists. He took a photo at that time and has only met with WikiLeaks staff (including Asssange) twice. It is false that 'he was trusted with selecting the 250,000 US State Department cables for the Russian media' or that he has had access to such at any time.

Shamir was able to search through a limited portion of the cables with a view to writing articles for a range of Russian media. The media that subsequently employed him did so of their own accord and with no intervention or instruction by WikiLeaks.

We do not have editorial control over the of hundreds of journalists and publications based on our materials and it would be wrong for us to seek to do so. We do not approve or endorse the writings of the world's media. We disagree with many of the approaches taken in analyzing our material.

Index did contact WikiLeaks as have many people and organisations do for a variety of reasons. The quote used here is not complete. WikiLeaks also asked Index for further information on this subject. Most of these rumours had not, and have not, been properly corroborated. WikiLeaks therefore asked Index to let us know if they had received any further information on the subject. This would have helped WikiLeaks conduct further inquiries. We did not at the time, and never have, received any response.

The New Statesman, BBC's Panorama, the Jerusalem Post, Boing Boing and a couple of other blogs all recited the same 'Minsk / Lukashenko cables' story and none of those articles pre-date the 31st January 2011 Guardian piece by David Leigh and Luke Harding.

The London left/liberal mainstream media is a clique. Smears are passed from media outlet to media outlet, "article hat-tip". On the 1st of March 2011 James Ball was already employed at The Guardian and fully capable of writing up Ian Hislop's  ‘A Curious Conversation With Mr Assange’ (which built upon WikiLeaks' alleged links to Israel Shamir) in his own newspaper, but chose instead to slip the story to a widely read UK liberal blog:

The links between Private Eye and The Guardian are close. Ian Hislop is a good friend of David Leigh's (as is John Kampfner CEO of Index on Censorship). The Guardian and Private Eye share an annual awards ceremony, set up in the name of journalist Paul Foot.  The Liberal Conspiracy article went viral on the internet and received hundreds of follow-up articles. This is a favourite trick of The Guardian and many other newspapers, they drop a story they wish to push but don't want to be the first to print (because their agenda would then be too obvious) into other friendly media - New Statesman, Liberal Conspiracy, etc - and then use the resulting articles and spin-offs in those outlets as 'sources' for follow-up articles in The Guardian on the same subject.

The seminal journalist John Pilger: The ‘getting’ of Assange and the smearing of a revolution. 6th October 2011.

A drip-feed of hostility runs through The Guardian, making it difficult for readers to interpret the WikiLeaks phenomenon and to assume other than the worst about its founder. David Leigh, The Guardian's  "investigations editor", told journalism students at City University that Assange was a "Frankenstein monster" who "didn't use to wash very often" and was "quite deranged". When a puzzled student asked why he said that, Leigh replied, "Because he doesn't understand the parameters of conventional journalism. He and his circle have a profound contempt for what they call the mainstream media". According to Leigh, these "parameters" were exemplified by Bill Keller when, as editor of The New York Times, he co-published the WikiLeaks disclosures with The Guardian. Keller, said Leigh, was "a seriously thoughtful person in journalism" who had to deal with "some sort of dirty, flaky hacker from Melbourne". Last November, the "seriously thoughtful" Keller boasted to the BBC that he had taken all WikiLeaks' war logs to the White House so the government could approve and edit them. In the run-up to the Iraq war, The New York Times published a series of now notorious CIA-inspired claims, claiming weapons of mass destruction existed. Such are the "parameters" that have made so many people cynical about the so-called mainstream media.

Leigh went as far as to mock the danger that, once extradited to America, Assange would end up wearing "an orange jump suit". These were things "he and his lawyer are saying in order to feed his paranoia". The "paranoia" is shared by the European Court of Human Rights which has frozen "national security" extraditions from the UK to the US because the extreme isolation and long sentences defendants can expect amount to torture and inhuman treatment. I asked Leigh why he and The Guardian had adopted a consistently hostile attitude towards Assange since they had parted company. He replied, "Where you, tendentiously, claim to detect a 'hostile toe', others might merely see well-informed objectivity."

It is difficult to find well-informed objectivity in The Guardian's book on Assange, sold lucratively to Hollywood, in which Assange is described gratuitously as a "damaged personality" and "callous". In the book, Leigh revealed the secret password Assange had given the paper. Designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables, its disclosure set off a chain of events that led to the release of all the files. The Guardian denies "utterly" it was responsible for the release. What, then, was the point of publishing the password?

The prize-winning former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook has experience in both worlds."The media, at least the supposedly left-wing component of it," he writes, "should be cheering on this revolution... And yet, mostly they are trying to co-opt, tame or subvert it [even] to discredit and ridicule the harbingers of the new age... Some of [the campaign against Assange] clearly reflects a clash of personalities and egos, but it also looks suspiciously like the feud derives from a more profound ideological struggle [about] how information should be controlled a generation hence [and] the gatekeepers maintaining their control."

John Pilger: The pursuit of Julian Assange is an assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism, 23rd August 2012:

Accompanying this has been a vituperative personal campaign against Assange. Much of it has emanated from The Guardian, which, like a spurned lover, has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. On 20 August, Harding was outside the Ecuadorean embassy, gloating on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh". It is ironic, if entirely appropriate, that a Guardian editorial putting the paper's latest boot into Assange bears an uncanny likeness to the Murdoch press's predictable augmented bigotry on the same subject. How the glory of Leveson, Hackgate and honourable, independent journalism doth fade.

David Leigh's 'password fiasco' was later used by James Ball to smear WikiLeaks.

The Guardian, 1st September 2011: Unredacted US embassy cables available online after WikiLeaks breach by James Ball.

A security breach has led to the WikiLeaks archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables being made available online, without redaction to protect sources. WikiLeaks has been releasing the cables over nine months by partnering with mainstream media organisations. Selected cables have been published without sensitive information that could lead to the identification of informants or other at-risk individuals. The US government warned last year that such a release could lead to US informants, human rights activists and others being placed at risk of harm or detention.

A security breach has led to the WikiLeaks archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables being made available online, without redaction to protect sources. WikiLeaks has been releasing the cables over nine months by partnering with mainstream media organisations. Selected cables have been published without sensitive information that could lead to the identification of informants or other at-risk individuals. The US government warned last year that such a release could lead to US informants, human rights activists and others being placed at risk of harm or detention.

A statement from The Guardian said: "It's nonsense to suggest The Guardian's WikiLeaks book has compromised security in any way. "Our book about WikiLeaks was published last February. It contained a password, but no details of the location of the files, and we were told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours. It was a meaningless piece of information to anyone except the person(s) who created the database. No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months to remove the files. That they didn't do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by The Guardian's book."

However, The Guardian's statement is deliberate nonsense, The Guardian could have checked their password on their own CableGate files. In an interview with The Guardian back in December of last year Julian Assange said "The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the U.S. and other countries, to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically." So much for David Leigh's claim The Guardian wasn't to know the 'files' were still online when he published his book. Perhaps he should have checked his own newspaper first?'

Statement on the betrayal of WikiLeaks passwords by The Guardian. GMT Wed Aug 31 22:27:48 2011 GMT

A Guardian journalist has, in a previously undetected act of gross negligence or malice, and in violation of a signed security agreement with The Guardian's editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger, disclosed top secret decryption passwords to the entire, unredacted, WikiLeaks Cablegate archive. We have already spoken to the State Department and commenced pre-litigation action. We will issue a formal statement in due course.


"Encryption passwords PGP are permanent. David Leigh constantly lies, hence even in his own book, "snaky brits"

Read more in the original link/ source:


  • Guest
On a basic security level, revealing any information about how Julian Assange formulates his passwords could have implications in any of the other myriad of sensitive areas Wikileaks deals with. Any files encrypted by Assange at the same time - or before - the cables, and in the possession of any entity hostile to Wikileaks, are now more vulnerable since Leigh's book gave up its clue about how Assange formulates passwords. And anyone who has access to the original file David Leigh was given, could now decrypt it. Unless the original file was carefully protected throughout its entire life, decrypted and unzipped, then destroyed after the data was released, that password will work on copies of it for ever. So regardless of how David Leigh & Co. imagine computer security works - and right now they are desperately trying increasingly ridiculous arguments to blame WikiLeaks for Leigh's actions - there's no reason to publish any password this sensitive - ever.

Another smear article by The Guardian:

The Guardian, 18th September 2011: The treachery of Julian Assange. The WikiLeaks founder, far from being a champion of freedom, is an active danger to the real seekers of truth, by Nick Cohen (published in The Guardian's sister paper The Observer and then re-published in The Guardian).

David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in Central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths.

However, an independent witness - John Goetz, a journalist with Der Spiegel - states that the events related above are simply not true:

I was at dinner at the Moro restaurant in London, along with Marcel Rosenbach from Der Spiegel, David Leigh and Declan Walsh of The Guardian, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Patrick Forbes asked me specifically if Julian Assange had made the remark “They're informants, they deserve to die” at the dinner, as has been alleged by David Leigh, and I told him that Julian did not say that at the dinner.

Even the arrest of the trustful hero Bradley Manning was used by David Leigh and James Ball to smear WikiLeaks. Indeed, Leigh and Luke Harding's 'WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy' related as fact rather than allegation that Manning was WikiLeaks' source, whilst he was still being tortured and before the U.S. government had even put him in front of a court.

The Guardian, 16 July 2011: All the encryption in the world wouldn't have kept Bradley Manning safe. The story of Manning's exposure shows how sources aren't protected by the kind of security measures WikiLeaks takes by James Ball.

But perhaps the Lamo/Manning chatlogs offer WikiLeaks an opportunity to simplify their thinking. What matters is whether public interest whistleblowers are protected, and stay anonymous – not who reveals them. WikiLeaks' greatest source is currently in prison. Instead of stressing no one has been caught through WikiLeaks actions, or boasting of security, WikiLeaks – and everyone else working in that world – should take a long look at what they can do better, and put the results into action. If not, Manning may not be the last whistleblower to face the consequences.

WIRED magazine, 6th October 2010: ‘I Can’t Believe What I’m Confessing to You (Adrian Lamo)’: The Wikileaks Chats by Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter.

On May 21, 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning initiated a series of online chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo after a story on Lamo was published at The chats continued over several days, during which Manning claimed that he was responsible for leaking classified material to the whistleblower site Wikileaks. Lamo tipped off the FBI and the Army about Manning’s claims, and on May 26, Manning was seized by Army authorities and put into pre-trial detention in Kuwait. He remains in Kuwait while the Army Criminal Investigation Division and other agencies investigate whether he leaked classified information and determine if he should be charged with any crime.

Another inexplicable distortion pushed by The Guardian relates to the onward extradition of Julian Assange from Sweden. The fact is that if Julian Assange is held incommunicado (except for limited communication with his defence lawyers) in a Swedish remand-centre and then a prison, his ability to rally support and fight the critical public relations campaign would be almost non-existent. Further, once held in prison, he can be held there throughout extradition proceedings after either the Stockholm allegations proceedings or jail term ends. Support for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in the U.K. remains substantial and stubbornly resilient to the propaganda and distortions surrounding the 'Stockholm affair' (unlike the situation in Sweden). It is in London, where the world's most formidable civil rights legal community resides, that resistance to an extradition to the U.S. would be greatest. An extradition attempt from London would be a seemingly unending literal nightmare for the U.K. government, with political capital being expended day after day, into the teeth of an astute public who always favour an underdog. The argument of where would be more viable to extradite legally is an obvious misdirection (Sweden is likely the easier option due to 'temporary surrender'). The pertinent question is where it is politically feasible. Statements that the U.S. doesn't want Julian Assange to face 'justice' and that there is “no evidence” that they desire this, are absolute nonsense, the evidence is compelling and overwhelming.

The Guardian, 19th August 2012: Julian Assange: the balcony defence. Miss A and Miss W are at the heart of this story, however inconvenient it may be for the WikiLeaks founder's supporters. Editorial.

And ultimately there is the repeated suggestion from Mr Assange's supporters that if he goes to Sweden he will face extradition to the US to be prosecuted for treason. Yet there is no serious evidence that Washington plans to start such proceedings; and if it ever did, the political and public opposition in Sweden as well as Britain and across the world would be massive.

The Guardian, 16th August 2012: Julian Assange case: stay patient and do the right thing. Refugee protection does not apply to the WikiLeaks founder and it is wrong of him to claim it. Editorial.

Most of these were based on the claim that the United States wants to get its hands on Mr Assange because of WikiLeaks, that it may torture him, that his deportation to Sweden by the UK would bring this closer, and that Ecuador has a right to protect him.

No one should be naïve about the US, but this is a fallacious chain of reasoning. The US has not said whether it wants to detain Mr Assange, though it has had plenty of time to do so. If it wanted his extradition, the US might logically be more likely to make use of Britain's excessively generous extradition treaty with the US – which has not happened – rather than wait until he was in Sweden, when both Sweden and the UK would have to sign off on any extradition application.

David Leigh and James Ball, amongst others, used their own manufactured controversy, the 'Minsk / Lukashenko cables', as a casus belli element of the then-ongoing plot to remove Julian Assange from the organisation that he founded, built and coded in December 2006.

Events in Stockholm, Sweden (20th August 2010) were by then 6 months old and Julian Assange was not expected to politically or functionally survive them for much longer. He would unquestionably be extradited, found guilty and jailed - in a politically influenced if not created case and a politically controlled judicial process with a certain outcome. During that entire process it would become impossible for him to continue as editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.

Elsewhere, running in parallel, an assault from within and without increased mercilessly during this period, as the power of the United States sought to shatter WikiLeaks as surely as it recently 'bludgeoned' to death the internet activist and possible WikiLeaks source, the genius, Aaron Swartz.

If Julian Assange could not be bullied into asking MI6 and the CIA (via WikiLeaks' main stream media partners) what should or should not be published, what was and was not acceptable, he would be replaced, by any means.

During this period several volunteers left WikiLeaks, Ron Gongripp withdrew out of fear of U.S. persecution, Herbert Snorrson withdrew to become a public contact of OpenLeaks. Smari McCarthy withdrew due to workload stress and the Iceland MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir withdrew in September 2010 stating "I don't want to take away from the importance of the Iraq dossiers, but I have been saying for some time that, before all these big scoops came along, WikiLeaks was very much about creating small hubs in different countries where people could leak important information to. It shouldn't just be about the international scoops." (This is called LocalLeaks, it is run by Anonymous and has recently come of age with the Steubenville rape case). Birgitta Jónsdóttir remains the editor-in-chief-in-waiting for those who want WikiLeaks to continue to operate, but under a more 'accommodating' regime.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg, however, went much further than simply running for cover. He was dismissed on the 25th of September 2010, after sabotaging the WikiLeaks submissions system and stealing roughly 3,500 unpublished documents from the WikiLeaks servers and then, to the immense relief of Bank of America and others (and most of all, himself), 'he' deleted them. He told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, stating "WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project". According to James Ball @jamesrbuk "Just for context: several Domscheit-Berg 'associates' had access to, and leaked, parts of #CableGate. So they may have copies of the archive DDB 'deleted'." James Ball, as well as being a student of David Leigh's, worked as a researcher for The Guardian journalist Heather Brooke before he joined WikiLeaks as an intern. It was Heather Brooke who passed the CableGate files (she tricked Smari McCarthy into giving her a copy) to The Guardian who then passed a copy to The New York Times. She later wrote a character assassination book and numerous articles attacking Julian Assange. According to Domscheit-Berg, his cache of stolen files were deleted by an unnamed other person or persons. Who are these people?

The above is just a fragment of the treachery sweeping WikiLeaks from late 2010 to mid-2011. It is clear that some of the media partners WikiLeaks brought on board to assist with disseminating information could not have harmed WikiLeaks more and CIA could not have asked for better.

During this time in December 2010, donations to WikiLeaks were blockaded by Visa, Mastercard and Paypal in an attempt to choke the life out of the organisation, whilst the U.S. Justice Department began an unprecedented criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, which involved harassing WikiLeaks' staff members, volunteers and anyone deemed overly associated with the oganisation such as Jacob Appelbaum.

And yet, on ground where others have previously collapsed, WikiLeaks survives intact. Julian Assange remains editor-in-chief having found relative safety in London's Ecuadorean Embassy. And everyone involved in the play to absorb WikiLeaks, to render it benign - when and where it counts most - has been left exposed. With no way back from their actions, the attack must continue.

You have to be a victor to 'write' history and false histories can be made transparent through information.


Read more in the original link/ source:


  • Guest
The distortions and fabrications employed during and ever since the failed WikiLeaks coup d'état are now fighting to embed themselves deeper into the fabric of public perception. Alex Gibney's documentary 'We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks' (2013), which has just premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, and another movie currently in production, 'The Fifth Estate' (the film's previous name was 'The Man Who Sold The World') directed by Bill Condon both use the accounts of those involved in the coup attempt as their primary source material.

The Guardian, 23rd January 2013: Benedict Cumberbatch as Julian Assange in the WikiLeaks movie – first picture. As 'The Fifth Estate', the hotly anticipated WikiLeaks movie - partly based on the book by Guardian writers David Leigh and Luke Harding – goes into production, the first image of Cumberbatch in the lead role of Julian Assange has emerged by Ben Child.

If you're wondering why the screen version of the WikiLeaks founder seems a bit more hirsute than the current model, that's because 'The Fifth Estate' focuses on the early days of the site. Based on Domscheit-Berg's own book Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website, as well as Guardian writers David Leigh and Luke Harding's WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, it's being tipped as a celluloid document of Assange's meteoric rise into the public consciousness.

The Guardian, 23 January 2013: Sundance film festival 2013: We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks – first look review. Alex Gibney's documentary is a thoughtful look at the WikiLeaks saga but reveals little about its central mystery: Julian Assange by Jeremy Kay.

There is frank and insightful commentary from former high-ranking members of the US administration, such as ex-CIA director Michael Hayden. However, the most revealing testimony is personal in nature. Former colleagues Daniel Domscheit-Berg and James Ball, now a staff writer at the Guardian, offer a fascinating inside track.

Kathryn Bigelow's war film 'Zero Dark Thirty' used CIA and White House officials as its primary source material and ended up as Frank Bruni writes in The New York Times on Sunday "I'm betting that Dick Cheney will love the new movie 'Zero Dark Thirty'. By the movie's account, ['enhanced' interrogation techniques' like waterboarding] produced information vital to the pursuit of the world's most wanted man. No waterboarding, no Bin Laden: that's what 'Zero Dark Thirty' appears to suggest." Emily Bazelon writes in Slate, "At the end of the interrogation scenes, I felt shaken but not morally repulsed, because the movie had successfully led me to adopt, if only temporarily, [the CIA agent]'s point of view: This treatment is a legitimate way of securing information vital to U.S. interests." And Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian writes, "That's why it glorifies torture: because it powerfully depicts it as a vital step - the first, indispensable step - in what enabled the US to hunt down and pump bullets into America's most hated public enemy."

So what is the outcome of using such slanted material in the Alex Gibney and Bill Condon's films?

In Alex Gibney's documentary he makes some quite stunning omissions by 'happenstance', primarily in forgetting that the ongoing United States Department of Justice investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and the looming spectre of indictments is the reason why Julian Assange is currently a refugee in the Ecuadorean embassy, having been granted political asylum. His view on the 'Stockholm affair' is both naive and blinked, and he engages in the inappropriateness of interviewing one of Julian Assange's accusers, who appears - yet again in the media, whilst Julian Assange remains legally unable to respond. On twitter when promoting the film, he repeats the Israel Shamir distortions created by David Leigh and James Ball. On DemocracyNow! he repeats the Swedish extradition line pushed by The Guardian "it’s much more difficult to extradite Julian Assange from Sweden than it is from the United Kingdom."

Bill Condon's film begins in a similar manner to "Zero Dark Thirty", with scenes set inside an Iranian military complex, sinister nuclear symbols are displayed over and over again. The suggestion is, that Iran is currently building a nuclear weapon that will be put into Shabab missiles and aimed? And that the actions of WikiLeaks make them complicit in this imminent danger.

Speaking by video link from Ecuadorean embassy to a gathering at Oxford University Julian Assange asks "How does this have anything to do with us? It is a lie upon lie. The movie is a massive propaganda attack on WikiLeaks and the character of my staff." The editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks held the film's script by Josh Singer ('The West Wing' writer) and quoted from a scene describing Iranian scientists meeting a U.S. agent, it is then suggested that WikiLeaks caused U.S. sources to flee Iran.

Julian Assange asks "How is it that a lie gets into a script about WikiLeaks?"

The censorship and manipulation of history seen above can perhaps best be summed up by George Orwell.

The Freedom of the Press by George Orwell, August 1945 (Orwell's Proposed Preface to ‘Animal Farm’).

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news - things which on their own merits would get the big headlines - being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.

I am well acquainted with all the arguments against freedom of thought and speech - the arguments which claim that it cannot exist, and the arguments which claim that it ought not to. I answer simply that they don’t convince me and that our civilisation over a period of four hundred years has been founded on the opposite notice. If I had to choose a text to justify myself, I should choose the line from Milton:

By the known rules of ancient liberty.

The word ancient emphasises the fact that intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic Western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals are visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice. I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty, indeed I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country - it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in republican France, and it is not so in the USA today - it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.

Read more/ open the related links and watch the images in the original site:

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
"And ultimately there is the repeated suggestion from Mr Assange's supporters that if he goes to Sweden he will face extradition to the US to be prosecuted for treason. Yet there is no serious evidence that Washington plans to start such proceedings; and if it ever did, the political and public opposition in Sweden as well as Britain and across the world would be massive."

     Well, certainly there are opinions on both sides of the argument that the evidence is clear that he will be extradited to the US from Sweden and then the complete opposite is also true, that there is no evidence, it all depends on what people want to believe and who you listen to.
       But the point I want to make it this, as the quote mentions there would be massive political backlash if the US extradited Assange to the states. Sure, I have no doubt that they would like to get their hands on him, look at the thousands that did so much less compared to him to piss the US Gov off, that the US went after. But for sure Assange has managed to make himself such a high profile figure, it would be absolutely ludicrous of the US Gov to try and extradite him now.   
      Think of it, if the US tried to extradite him from Sweden or the UK, then it would certainly justify and reinforce everything that WikiLeaks said against the US Gov. It is my humble opinion that the backlash would greatly outweigh the benefit of persecuting a man that has already been stripped of the great majority of his freedom already. 
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear


  • Guest
The article has been updated.
The new version can be read here in the original link: