Espionage Act: How the Government Can Engage in Serious Aggression Against the People of the United States

Lieberman including the NYT is not a surprise if what the article and interview about Wikileaks linked in this post say is strongly likely about Wikileaks is true. What it is is that WL may very possibly be, or else probably is, a group used by the CIA without Julian Assange being aware of it. If the CIA is doing this, then JA might know about it and be complicit in this, but he might be completely duped. The explanation provided by John Young, who runs cryptome.org, is very sensible; it definitely is reality-based, in terms of how the imperialist elites and CIA operate, that is. Wikileaks fans may scream, rage against people giving careful, open-minded and reality-based consideration to what John Young and others say, but open-minded people who know that the CIA has a very serious history of infiltrating activist groups worldwide should want to give the article and interview linked in this post very careful consideration, as well.

John Young is definitely not some young kid; he's a senior. And I can see from listening to him that he's definitely much more world-knowledgeable than Julian Assange is. JA has made some nonsensical blunders; mocking "9/11 truth" without having any qualifications for being able to formulate a real opinion about it and while [many] former US and foreign intelligence specialists, military officers of high ranks, politicians, architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, expert pilots, other professionals, and many millions of people know that the "official story" is very bogus and that there's a major cover-up by the government. He also spoke favorably of psychopath Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu after the latter recently said that the cables released by Wikileaks weren't a problem and would "help" us all understand that Israel is supposedly right vis-a-vis Iran, and so on. And he stated other nonsensical things, but these are the two that come to mind at the moment; having read about one or two others, but they're not presently in mind and I'm not going to peruse through my bookmarks to find out what these subjects are.

He definitely should not feel flattered when psychopaths say he's doing nothing harmful; no one should. But worse than that, the Israeli PM spoke in words welcoming the work of Wikileaks, certainly the release of the cables. We have to be awfully naive to feel flattered when psychopaths say favorable things about us or our work, for Ben. Netanyahu clearly was using Wikileaks and, therefore, Julian Assange as dupes. Wikileaks released cables that were negative about Iran and North Korea, while releasing nothing bad or negative about the government of Israel; only about the Israeli mafia, which is surely going to have associations with the Israeli government, just as many members of the political body of Washington and US states do, but while the cable or cables about this mafia said nothing explicit about the Israeli government.

Julian Assange was either very naive about the extreme criminality and psychopathic nature of the Israeli leadership, and was duped by what Netanyahu said, or he definitely is no angel, say. Alex Jones says that he believes that JA has been duped, rather than wittingly complicit with the criminal imperialist elites.

John Pilger says that Julian Assange is a friend and that he likes this journalist, but what've they talked about; Crocodile Dundee movies, Crocodile Hunter documentaries, or what? Assange doesn't seem to have learned much of anything from the decades of John Pilger's great work. If he did, then he should not have been suckered by what Netanyahu said, but he was. He's naive.

The article and the video interview, both linked below, will provide what evidently is information and viewpoints that should be carefully considered. If Julian Assange has been and is still duped, then we shouldn't follow as if we're lemmings.

I'll provide a link to the article, first, since it's where the link for the interview was obtained, but people might want to listen to the interview, first.

"If We Lose our Internet Freedoms Because of Wikileaks, You Should At Least Know Why"

by Scott Creighton, American Everyman, willyloman.wordpress.com, Dec. 11, 2010

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22371

"(emphasis added)" is not by me, btw, and he provides the links for the articles he quoted from. At the end of the article he refers to an exchange between "AJ" and John Young, and this is from the interview on The Alex Jones Channel linked further below. This article provided a link to the interview, but to part 3 of 3, so I guess the bit quoted from that interview in this article is from clip 3; unless Scott Creighton meant to link to part 1, but linked to part 3, instead.

Wikileaks was started up in Dec. of 2006. Oddly enough, as a supposed “leak” site, a dissident site, it was given a great deal of immediate mainstream attention from the likes of the Washington Post, TIME magazine, and even Cass Sunstein the now Obama administration official who wrote a paper on how to “cognitively infiltrate” dissident groups in order to steer them in a direction that is useful to the powers that be.

The TIME magazine article is curious because it seems that right off the bat they were telling us how to interpret Wikileaks in such a way that sounded strangely familiar to George W. Bush back just after 9/11…

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

Now remember and read closely… this article was written PRIOR to Wikileaks’ first big “leak”, which according to the article was to occur sometime in March of 2007.

So why would TIME magazine be writing about them in the first place if they hadn’t done anything yet? ...

TIME goes on to explain that the Wikileaks version will be the “correct” version (even though they had yet to publish anything at that point… pretty far out on that credibility limb for TIME if you ask me…)

(snip)

Few of you might know that just prior to the unveiling of Wikileaks, the intelligence world had an unveiling of their own… a “social media” based resource called “Intellipedia”. Some of you might find this interesting…

(snip)

John Young of Cryptome (a well-known and established whistle-blower site) was working with Julian Assange in December 2006 while they were getting all of this off the ground so to speak. eventually he came to a conclusion about Wikileaks and Assange. The following is from one of the last email communications with Assange that John Young sent him which he had released to the public once he came to his conclusions.

(snip)

It would appear that John Young had problems with the peer review part of the Wikileaks process… Notice how that is first and foremost what TIME magazine praises about Wikileaks? Sounds to me like someone is trying to fix the narrative.

So it would appear that TIME and the Washington Post had to come out with supportive articles about Wikileaks because someone was “leaking” information and questions about them and their little project looked doomed to fail before it even got off the ground. Perhaps they got a little help writing all that propaganda from one of Julian Assange’s first partners in the project… a PR guy affiliated with ABC and News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch.

(snip)

Cass Sunstein also wrote about Wikileaks in Feb of 2007 prior to their release of the first set of Chinese “leaks”. But Sunstein also wrote about infiltrating dissident groups later in 2008. Sunstein currently heads the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for Barack Obama.

(snip)

This internal discourse on the purpose and the practice of infiltrating dissident groups in order to undermine existing “conspiracy theories” was written in 2008, but don’t suppose that it hadn’t been done before. ...

(snip)

But just so we all know, this is the background of the mythology called Wikileaks. If we lose our internet freedoms over this fight, I certainly want us all to have a little better understanding of why.

UPDATE: John Young was just asked by AJ what he thought was the overall point of the Wikileaks program…

AJ: Is this a big theatre with Assange or are they burning him?

Young: Its a theatre operation. Partly lulling, partly testing systems. Testing public reaction “are we going to get traction out of cyber threats or not.” will this work or not, because as you know they haven’t caused any harm that is why they haven’t been charged… and then there will be some lives lost or something will happen… and at some point when this cyber war becomes a real war, we will see because the laws will be ready. Interview John Young

The interview is roughly 40 minutes.

"Architect John Young: WikiLeaks Fog of Infowar and its Ties to The Elite - Alex Jones Tv 1/3" (12:29)

TheAlexJonesChannel, Dec. 9th, 2010

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lTBJAkNyBk

Alex talks with architect John Young, who runs the website Cryptome. The site is a repository for information about freedom of speech, cryptography, spying, and surveillance. In February 2010, Cryptome was briefly shut down by Network Solutions for alleged DMCA violations after it posted a "Microsoft legal spy manual."

Be wise and don't ignore this. Being wise means being open-minded and accepting to consider what others say in all honesty even when it's not pleasing to us. But like is said in the article, above, John Young worked with Wikileaks for a time early on, but he quit when WL plans set off an alarm for reality-based Young. He explains this in the interview, part 1.

UPDATE:

I just finished listening to parts 1-3 of the interview and definitely recommend that people listen to it for what John Young says. Alex Jones struck me as needing a vacation, R&R, and he screwed up with respect to the So.-North Korea situation as well as in demonizing NK. I read an article over the past week about or by an author who spent considerable time in NK and who says that it permitted him to learn first-hand that NK is [not] as bad as the West "popularly" makes NK out to be; nowhere that bad. He wrote of it quite favorably, without saying NK is great. And David Swanson recently posted an article (linked, below) about the real history of the start of the Korean War, saying that it was actually started by the south and that the US or government of the US knew this, but kept it secret and lied to take advantage of the conflict, or worse. And one thing we should all be able to be certain of by now is that the elites of the US constantly demonize the countries or governments that the elites of the US want to target; demonizing based on lies, a lot of lies, which are strategically needed to try to fool us.

""Die for a Tie" -- How the Korean War Began"
by David Swanson, Nov. 23rd, 2010

http://warisacrime.org/content/die-tie-how-korean-war-began

Alex Jones definitely struck me as seriously needing to take a good break away from this work he does because he really flew off the handle when John Young called himself a liar, adding that he was lying to Alex Jones and listeners at that very moment, as well. Anyone sufficiently awake would've realized what John Young meant and it's not by taking his words literally. He clarified afterwards, because Alex was too asleep and needed help. He really needs to get R&R.

Anyway, the interview is excellent to listen to for what John Young says. Alex Jones concluded or closed by saying that he wanted to try to arrange for a full one-hour interview with John Young today, saying Sunday, which'd be today, and John Young didn't object, so maybe they will be holding the interview today.

UPDATE 2:

Microsoft vs Cryptome.org:

The following RT piece is for an interview with John Young about Microsoft, Google, Cisco, and other "major players" being complicit with the governments of the US and other countries for spying on Internet users.

"Microsoft claims copyright infringement" (4:11)
RTAmerica, Feb. 26, 2010

www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ciV35S0fY

Just how powerful are big corporations? The website criptome (sic) published a Microsoft document that showed the company stores private user information. John Young says that Microsoft is just a front for law enforcement.

John Young says that the FBI, police officials and others have "regularly" been after Cryptome, but haven't been able, so far, to shut down this Web site because it doesn't do anything illegal.

He says that that is why they began "using a subterfuge like copyright. And this is part of a worldwide phenomenon to clamp down on the Internet, using copyright and a variety of other civil means, rather than open means of doing it by law enforcement. ..., because if the govt admitted it was behind it, it would cause an outcry. So they're using these subterfuges to do it".

The RT host then asks how the govt is "getting Microsoft to do that sort of thing" and John Young replied,

I'll try to break up the rest of what he said into paragraphs by guessing where to make the break points, and this is for the rest of what John Young says in the video.

Well, they're invoking the copyright law, which does not require a court hearing, does not require lawyers. They can just send an e-mail to the service provider, like ours, and the service provider then turns around under this law and says, "Within two days, if you don't take a document down, we will shut your site down". And, so, that's what this law allows. And, so, it's a law that's very convenient for this purpose.

There are other laws that serve the same purpose, but it basically deflects attention from the fact of who benefits from this. Microsoft does not benefit from this. It is law enforcement who benefits from this, and that's why their document is stamped a law enforcement document. So the govt does not want to know that these corporations are being used for this purpose.

It is not only in the United States, don't forget. It is around the world. And many of these corporations operate around the world, and they are complicit with govt in controlling the Internet, and particularly controversial sites. Google, Microsoft, Cisco, all the major players are involved in this, and they're required to do it under law, under the Collea (spelling?) spy, wiretap law. So copyright is a cover for the wiretap operation, and that's why we challenged it.

We knew this was going on, and, so, we said this is not a copyright violation. This is important information, because copyright typically protects intellectual property, like Microsoft's programs. This is not a program. This is a how-to guide for law enforcement to analyze the data that Microsoft provides to them. So it's not a real program. It's just a guide. They clamped a copyright claim on it so they could use the copyright law. We think that's an abuse of the copyright law, but, actually, the greater abuse is that they're not being candid about why they're doing this. And law enforcement does not want to be exposed. That's why Microsoft backed off. They did not want to go to court, which we hoped they would, in order to hear more about this. We're not alone in challenging.

Where I wrote "Collea (spelling?)", a Google search using Collea, wiretape and law for (three) search terms turns up links about CALEA and one is the related Wikipedia page.

www.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_En...

The following interview with John Young is roughly 26 minutes for all three parts.

"Cryptome's John Young on Alex Jones TV 1/3: The Internet is a Police State Surveillance Grid"

TheAlexJonesChannel, Feb. 26, 2010

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU5lDiZRBnM

Alex also talks with John Young, webmaster of Cryptome, a website that covers news on freedom of speech, cryptography, spying, and surveillance. The ISP Network Solutions shuttered Young's site earlier in the week after he posted a document summarizing Microsoft's dealings with law enforcement agencies.

The following 2-clip interview with John Young is 18 minutes.

"John Young on Alex Jones Tv 1/2: Yahoo Spying on You for Big Brother!!"
TheAlexJonesChannel, Dec. 7th, 2009

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ELaF930hyY

Alex talks with John Young, an independent scholar, architect, and webmaster of Cryptome, a website that functions as a repository for information about freedom of speech, cryptography, spying, and surveillance. Young's site came under fire last week from Yahoo's lawyers when it posted information on Yahoos Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement, a 17 page guide describing Yahoos data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it offers law enforcement.

I haven't yet listened to these two interviews on the Alex Jones Show on Feb. 26th, 2010 and Dec. 7th, 2009, yet, just posting the links to include the texts with the videos so that people reading here can immediately know what the subjects are. But I'll be listening to both this evening.

Wikileaks:

What's going on with Wikileaks and Julian Assange may be, if not evidently is, a government ploy to try to create a situation that the governments will then use as so-called justification for strongly establishing Internet restrictions and, therefore, control. John Young, who has direct, first-hand knowledge of signs of Wikileaks likely or almost certainly being manipulated, say, by the CIA, George Soros, and/or others, who do [not] have "public benefit" in mind, and while Julian Assange might now be aware of this, provides an important explanation that everyone supporting Wikileaks in all honesty really should learn about and then carefully keep in mind; if people truly wish to care about legitimate Internet freedom, freedom of information, and establishment of honest and open government. And he's not the only person sounding alarms about Wikileaks.

I've read articles by two or three other people and we can only hope that they're all mistaken. There's no point in hoping that they're wrong, for they definitely are not wrong about being very wary of what Wikileaks may really be used for, with or without Julian Assange's knowledge of it. John Young warned Julian Assange very early on after joining the Wikileaks team, warning him when John Young decided he had to pull out because of one or more strong signs that told him that Wikileaks was being manipulated by unethical third-parties, say. That's explained in the Dec. 9th, 2010 interview linked in the first part of this post.

Many "activists" refused to listen to warnings from others over the past 9+ years and making a mistake or error once is understandable, but repeatedly making the same mistakes or errors, over and over again, because of closed minds is [never] good. People need to be open-minded and learn what the warnings are. Only careful consideration of warnings can permit conclusions to be made responsibly. Ignoring warnings or alarms placed in the public domain is irresponsible. Learn and carefully consider, before disagreeing. Only idiots disagree about things they know nothing about.