Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 03, 2011

Assange Is Right To Publish All Cables

Julian Assange and Wikileaks were right to now publish all the U.S. cables it had obtained.

Recently, because of quite outrageous misbehavior by the former Wikileaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg and the Guardian's David Leigh, all cables, unredacted, became available via Cryptome and other unofficial sources. To prevent possible cable forgeries coming into circulation Assange then decided to publish the whole official bunch he had obtained at the Wikileaks' website. There was no longer a need to redact those as the unredacted version was unfortunately already in circulation.

The model Julian first tried to work with, giving the cables to media outlets and have them publish on them, did not work. Those outlets published some cables but they held back on many others while at the same time bashing away at Wikileaks and Julian.

As an example see cable 06GENEVA763:

I have received various reports indicating that at least 10 persons, namely Mr. Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28), his wife Sumay'ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther (aged 24), their three children Hawra'a (aged 5) Aisha (aged 3) and Husam (5 months old), Faiz's mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (aged 74), Faiz's sister (name unknown), Faiz's nieces Asma'a Yousif Ma'arouf (aged 5 years old), and Usama Yousif Ma'arouf (aged 3 years), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi (aged 23) were killed during the raid.

Even after many month not one of the official Wikileaks partner media outlets had published this cable about a massacre U.S. troops committed in Iraq. They suppressed it. Only now, after it became public knowledge, do they start to report on it. Why do they only now deem it as newsworthy when it was availble to them for many month? This in itself is a huge media scandal.

For a look at the whole Wikileaks drama "from the tin-hat angle" I'll hand over to Jeremiah in a comment here:

David Leigh/Guardian is working in the interest of CIA/MI6 and looking not to collaborate with WikiLeaks, but to ensnare him for prosecution.

Clue: DL Insisting on seeing the actual files

Clue: DL Pressing for the GPG passphrase

Clue: DL Publishing the ENTIRE proceeding and passphrase in a book

Dumbshit-Borg is either a long-time mole or was "turned"

Clue: D-B had full access to all unredacted material

Clue: D-B acrimoniously split with Assange/WikiLeaks over ego-boundary shit and speculative "risk" issues

Clue: D-B in his schism is part of the probable exposure of these cables - portrayed as an "accident", while he was unilaterally and admittedly sabotaging WikiLeaks

Clue: D-B can now say "I told you so" over this exposure of sources - pointing to this as evidence, rather than a situation he perpetrated

The US Army Counterintelligence Agency said in 2008 that WikiLeaks was"a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army" and PLANNED OPERATIONS to neutralise/discredit WikiLeaks:

"The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using to make such information public." source (

Question: Do you think that the Agency makes these declarations in vain, for their entertainment value?

Question: Do you think they are alone, and that there are not equivalent planned and current operations by the CIA, etc.?

Question: Are the combined actions of DL and D-B implausible as the intended outcome of a counter-WikiLeaks strategy, set in motion by one or more intelligence agencies, including US Army Counterintelligence?

Think about it. Once they set this down IN PRINT, internally, and don't have a "positive" outcome? Somebody goes through the ringer.

This is likely all a setup. One with a scenario that is similar to the one indicated here, if not completely identical. It is one where where David Leigh and Dumbshit-Borg are either pathetic and self-serving dupes, or sickening quislings.

Either way, this is a noose fabricated of intentional actions with plausible deniability. Identify WikiLeaks with Assange's personality, and attack the personality. Attack the credibility of WikiLeaks methodology while distracting from their effectiveness and success in exposing filth, corruption and illegal government action.

I know the will get Assange one way or another. They just created the circumstance to have him charged in Australia - their one sure bet. But watch out, DL and D-B.

When your mysterious, untimely deaths occur, I will look at it as confirmation of these speculations.

And proudly burnish my tin-hat...

Posted by b on September 3, 2011 at 4:21 UTC | Permalink


Assange Is Right To Publish All Cables
Absolutely. No doubt whatsoever.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 3 2011 5:39 utc | 1

and with b as director, no doubt in get us this info.
Thks b!

Posted by: an idiot | Sep 3 2011 10:17 utc | 2

The bastards.

Posted by: Jake | Sep 3 2011 15:56 utc | 3

wow, just wow. thank you b and jeremiah too

Posted by: annie | Sep 3 2011 16:56 utc | 4

Assange tried to meld the ‘hacker’ and ‘information warrior’ and ‘free speech’ strands to try and gain credibility and respectability.

That was bound to fail - who offers the NY times information, and for what? Those who do are either stooges paid to do so (think tanks, the supposed serious commentators, etc.) or, perhaps not for Spiegel, NYT, and the Guardian, but others, individuals on the make for money. So papers like the Guardian join modernity - big news flash - but what changes? Nothing.

Assange was idealistic or naive enough to try to break that mold - he obviously does believe in ‘freedom of information’ and wanted to be a new media Mogul. He did not clearly understand he would be a media sensation for a short while, or was looking forward to it, who knows, squeezed like a lemon, exploited, and then vilified, arrested and so on, just another news cycle, more stuff to get hysterical about, and sell news.

Assange is an individual, he has no backing (beyond the internet warriors and some groupies one supposes) and no clear political message, or none that can be heard as the MSM have a deathly grip on things. Many serious anti-PTB ppl of various stripes never read Wikileaks or paid it any attention. Diplo cables? What new do they show? A minor disturbance, possibly even paid for by the PTB, some journalistic hoopla...or getting Hillary's panties in a twist..

Still, I commend his efforts...but as a person. He is a brave man. Hats off.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 3 2011 17:57 utc | 5

Julian Assange is now in deep trouble. This latest will be blamed on him and will be used to get him into the hands of the USA. They will punish him in ways I don't want to know.

I agree that the man has a ton of courage.

Posted by: joseph | Sep 3 2011 21:34 utc | 6

NPR played the story as indicating bad data management by WikiLeaks (read Assange), titling the segment WikiLeaks Now Victim Of Its Own Leak.

The write-up for the segment begins with these paragraphs:

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, once said his mission was not simply to divulge secrets, but to make sure the release of that information actually made a difference.

He shared his trove of diplomatic cables with The New York Times, the Guardian in London, and other news organizations so they could draw the world's attention to the most important parts.

But that approach has now collapsed. The entire WikiLeaks collection, consisting of a quarter-million diplomatic files, is now out in raw form on the Internet. They are unfiltered, unanalyzed and unedited. No names of diplomats or secret sources have been removed.

The release was apparently inadvertent, but the backlash has been swift and harsh. WikiLeaks, which gained worldwide fame for publicizing U.S. government secrets, is once again the target of intense criticism. But this time, it's not just the U.S. government and others who wanted to keep those documents private. Even former WikiLeaks supporters are criticizing the organization for sloppy security. (My emphasis)

Bradley Manning is reported to be "down on WikiLeaks," and his supporters (none named) are saying leakers have a right to expect their privacy will he protected. A professor says this "leak" means future leakers will not trust WikiLeaks.

The situation is presented as WikiLeaks' leaks, or at least the organization's fault that there was a breach of their security. And WikiLeaks is not to be trusted, is the message to NPR listeners.

Posted by: jawbone | Sep 3 2011 21:36 utc | 7

Kevin Gosztola has a post up at Firedoglake which links to several analyses of the situation.

Video of his appearance on RT discussing the WikiLeaks "leak" and some specific cable revelations is included.

RT notes the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) are using the leak of the decryption password to attack WikiLeaks -- and to continue to ignore the very vital information the public should know be learning about.

Posted by: jawbone | Sep 3 2011 21:55 utc | 8

Greg Mitchell of The Nation has revived his WikiLeaks Blog with links to all the reporting he can find, beginning yesterday.

Salon helpfully has a section devoted to its WikiLeaks coverage, including Glenn Greenwald's most recent post, chockablock with his usual high level of links. Greenwald points out that the US Government has had at least a year to warn anyone mentioned in the cables.

Posted by: jawbone | Sep 3 2011 23:08 utc | 9

It is clear, following Der Speigel and Greenwald, that Dombscheidt-Berg is responsible for the distribution of the file, otherwise unpublished.

He included it in the mirror archive he replicated, as he absconded with WikiLeaks entrusted material, establishing his "OpenLeaks" schism.

It is entirely in the realm of possibility, that the whole OpenLeaks drama was designed as a vehicle and cover-story for this release. The level of collusion with Leigh is indeterminable, but would be unsurprising.

Posted by: Jeremiah | Sep 3 2011 23:58 utc | 10

It is clear, following Der Speigel and Greenwald, that Dombscheidt-Berg is responsible for the distribution of the file, otherwise unpublished.

He included it in the mirror archive he replicated, as he absconded with WikiLeaks entrusted material, establishing his "OpenLeaks" schism.

It is entirely in the realm of possibility, that the whole OpenLeaks drama was designed as a vehicle and cover-story for this release. The level of collusion with Leigh is indeterminable, but would be unsurprising.

Posted by: Jeremiah | Sep 3 2011 23:58 utc | 11

An earlier Kevin Gosztola post on the Leak of Leaks and the roles of David Leigh and Dombscheidt-Berg, wherein he addresses their crimes against whistleblowing.

Posted by: jawbone | Sep 4 2011 1:55 utc | 12

From jawbone's link at #9
Iraq War veteran on Manning, the media and the military

Serving with my unit 2nd battalion 16th infantry in New Baghdad Iraq, I vividly remember the moment in 2007, when our Battalion Commander walked into the room and announced our new rules of engagement:

"Listen up, new battalion SOP (standing operating procedure) from now on: Anytime your convoy gets hit by an IED, I want 360 degree rotational fire. You kill every [expletive] in the street!"
(M)any of us could not believe what we had just been told to do. Those of us who knew it was morally wrong struggled to figure out a way to avoid shooting innocent civilians, while also dodging repercussions from the non-commissioned officers who enforced the policy. In such situations, we determined to fire our weapons, but into rooftops or abandoned vehicles, giving the impression that we were following procedure.
If PFC Bradley Manning did what he is accused of, he is a hero of mine; not because he's perfect or because he never struggled with personal or family relationships -- most of us do -- but because in the midst of it all he had the courage to act on his conscience.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 4 2011 4:38 utc | 13

B. Manning is a hero as well.

Publishing or leaking the raw or unredacted cables, without essential names removed, is awful, even if the consequences may not be as terrible as presumed at first. It will damage Wikileaks and Assange - until now recently it looked a bit as if the various Gvmt. players were a tired of this matter, and toning it down, which they would have been advised to do by ‘communication’ types.

The reason for the publication might be internal dissent (seems the most likely), or attack by enemies (always a possibility), but the result is a flavor raising the stakes, upping the ante, a kind of power call, a threat even, which negates the previous Wikileaks line which was underpinned with guide-lines.

We are accustomed to revelations of secret material / information / knowledge that are ‘scoops’, ‘spectacular’, limited in their scope to some particular matter, a few actors, individual or institutional, and are timed in their ‘revelation’ - they are often *post hoc* and don’t affect the future much.

What Assange/|Wikileaks tried to do was truly novel, and unfamiliar to the public. Revealing secrets is a dicey business.

Ppl build their lives, and their children’s lives, on the information they have, not on what is hidden or might be the case. Therefore, naturally, W-leaks ethical guide lines and the collaboration with the MSM - respectability, acceptance, a game change of a kind.

That it would fail was a given. So, what next? Julian, Hey, what next? What’s your strategic thinking on all this?

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 4 2011 13:30 utc | 14

Reportage on the massacre at Ishaqi is not really 'news', but the buried confirmation of the facts is long overdue:

Posted by: felix | Sep 4 2011 17:52 utc | 15

Is the report of us troops murdering children a lie. Why is it not denied. If true it is pure evil."say it aint so joe".
'A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi. '

Posted by: boindub | Sep 5 2011 15:35 utc | 16

The United Snakes go from Attila-the-hun' (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) to Pol Plot (AF/PAK, Somalia, Yemen) and then provides the weapons and munitions for the Jewish massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanon - what's in a name? The US recieved WTC as punishment for financing Jewish terrorism and now WTC II & III, will come along be for its own genocidal behavior as a low life racist state - along with its Jewish hemmoroid.

I say 'Go Taliban!' These murderous bastards had it coming and major Hassan (Fort Hood) sensed that justice was long over due to the blood soaked killers returning from Iraq: Haditha, Fallujah, Sadar City and Basra and then preparing to go on to Afghanistan and do some more war crimes in the name of 'patriotism' and 'The AmeriKKKan way.'

Reverend Wright was right - 'God damn AmeriKKKa!'

Tombstone, AZ.

Posted by: TheAZCowBoy | Sep 7 2011 4:28 utc | 18

Assange: Man of the year: Time magazine.
Nobel Peace Prize recipient (A real man of peace this time).
The Pentagon wouldn't dare prosecute him with the world watching.
But, if I were he, I would check the ignition wires everytime I turned the keys to start my car - and fly 'only' by private (undisclosed) airplane.

AmeriKKKa has lost all of its decency (any that was left after the 4.9m massacres in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1970's). And next time I am in a sports stadium and they begin that 'America the beautiful' caca - I will flip 'em the bird!

TheAZCowBoy *
Tombstone, AZ.
(* Ex-F-104C pilot. I would never fight for this crimimal enterprise called AmeriKKKa, ever!

Posted by: TheAZCowBoy | Sep 7 2011 4:41 utc | 19

Please correct the spelling error in the second sentence of the article.

Posted by: Spelling Police | Sep 15 2011 16:08 utc | 20

The comments to this entry are closed.