Information "revealed without injury to the public interest.”

The statement by TIME, "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," could as easily be an attempt to discredit WikiLeaks by linking it to the CIA before ever it started to release information.

That may be possible, humanly, but what the article and the interview I posted links for and excerpts from are about is not Wikileaks being associated with the CIA, George Soros, or other imperialists with Julian Assange actually knowing about this. The association is something that he could've been and could still be very unaware of, and this can be true for the whole Wikileaks team.

But he has towed the line of the imperialist West more than once. He blindly and without any relevant qualifications mocked the actually huge and worldwide "9/11 truth movement", which is not uniform in beliefs. Perhaps he only was aware of some of the bogus claims or "theories" that've been presented by some people who falsely claimed to be "9/11 truthers" and actual "truthers" who just made some blunderous mistakes because they lacked qualifications for being able to perform the analyses, though some simply weren't aware of evidence that disproved their beliefs. In the latter case, many people who sincerely are "truthers" still believe that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 because these people are still not aware of the evidence that proves that a plane did hit there. But some people planted "theories" that were totally ludicrous, such as the one stating that rather than planes having actually hit the WTC Towers, what people saw for planes were holographic images of planes. No serious "truther" could've come up with that nonsense. But it may be one of the nonsensical claims that many critics and mockers of the "9/11 truth movement" are based on; instead of having seriously studied from the highly competent research that has been conducted.

So I'm not sure why, but Julian Assange, while heading Wikileaks, nonsensically mock the "9/11 truth movement".

He also spoke favorably of Ben. Netanyahu after the latter defended the Wikileaks release of the cables; because the cables didn't say anything critical about the Israeli government, while supporting the Israeli government and US in their war on Iran and North Korea. Julian Assange was [not] sharp enough to realize why Netanyahu welcomed the cables released by Wikileaks, and it's elementary to quickly realize why he would.

Either JA has a malicious streak in him, or he's very naive, geopolitically. These examples are enough to indicate that he could unwittingly be influenced by imperialists.

As to the hypothesis that WikiLeaks has been infiltrated by the CIA or other groups that's certainly possible. It's also possible that Young's dissatisfaction with WikiLeaks stems from his failure to infiltrate WikiLeaks successfully. There's no evidence either way.

According to his explanation, John Young didn't need to infiltrate Wikileaks. I thought to have understood that he joined the team very early on, but he also didn't join. His first and second answers to someone who emailed him some questions explains his relationship to Wikileaks and it's actually as he said in the interview of Dec. 9th, 2010 on the Alex Jones Show. There is one difference between the interview and this email exchange and it's wherein JY said in the interview with Alex Jones that Wikileaks was, very early on, wanting to have a fund-raising drive for $5MN over six months, while a year is the timeframe specified in the email exchange. Either way, if the fund-raising drive was for $5MN, then it's valid to be alarmed by that large amount of money being needed by Wikileaks, which at the time, was working only through a mailing list, JY says.

http://cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-unlike.htm

Both JY and JA are among many cypherpunks, which is something that JY mentions in the interview on the Alex Jones Show. The Wikipedia page he mentions is the following one and the list of cypherpunks is under the subheading of "6 Noteworthy cypherpunks".

wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cypherpunk

Cryptome.org has been around for much longer than Wikileaks and Wikileaks hasn't yet released any critically important leaked information, while Cryptome apparently has posted some important information about government and corporate fraud, et cetera. This is not based on my first-hand knowledge of either and I didn't know that Wikileaks began in 2006 until the past few days. It's based on what plenty of people have said about Cryptome in articles that are on the Web.

Wikileaks has many fanatical fans who pretend that the cables are providing new evidence that can be used to end the wars, but while I welcome any and all evidence that can hypothetically be used for prosecutions, it's really not true, so far, that Wikileaks has provided [important] leaks. We already knew more than enough. And we had enough solid proof before the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan were even launched to be able to [immediately] and strongly oppose the wars. We didn't need to wait any longer; it's just that it took time for enough people to [wake up] to the fact that neither of these wars could be justified.

Some people have argued that if the elites of the US truly have no affiliation, secret or otherwise, with Wikileaks and wanted to stop Julian Assange, then the US and allied governments certainly had the ability to do this; but they let him and Wikileaks continue, instead. JA's whereabouts were known by the governments, just not having been publicly revealed, according to one of his defense lawyers very recently.

You attempt a degrees of separation link between Assange, Sunstein, and Obama, yet you ignore the direct ties between Young and Lamo, the hacker that either obeyed the directives of his owners to entrap Manning or virtuously reported him to authorities (one may take one's pick).

Since you didn't provide any links to articles supporting your allegation, let's see if I can be of some help.

"Wikileaks' estranged co-founder becomes a critic (Q&A)"

by Declan McCullagh, Privacy Inc., CNET News, July 20, 2010

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

NEW YORK--John Young was one of Wikileaks' early founders. Now he's one of the organization's more prominent critics.

Young, a 74-year-old architect who lives in Manhattan, publishes a document-leaking Web site called Cryptome.org that predates Wikileaks by over a decade. He's drawn fire from Microsoft after posting leaked internal documents about police requests, irked the U.K. government for disclosing the names of possible spies, and annoyed Homeland Security by disclosing a review of Democratic National Convention security measures.

Cryptome's history of publicizing leaks -- while not yielding to pressure to remove them -- is what led Young to be invited to join Wikileaks before its launch over three years ago. He also agreed to be the public face of the organization by listing his name on the domain name registration.

Operating a Web site to post leaked documents isn't very expensive (Young estimates he spends a little over $100 a month for Cryptome's server space). So when other Wikileaks founders started to talk about the need to raise $5 million and complained that an initial round of publicity had affected "our delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies," Young says, he resigned from the effort.

In the last few weeks, after the arrest of Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning cast a brighter spotlight on Wikileaks, Young has been trying to trace Wikileaks' money flows. On July 17, Wikileaks asked supporters for $200,000 to pay for Mannings' attorneys, even though co-founder Julian Assange said a few days earlier that the organization had already raised $1 million.

CNET caught up with Young at the Next HOPE hacker conference here last weekend, where he was attending the Wikileaks keynote speech. Following is a transcript made from a recorded interview with Young, lightly edited for space.

I'll comment on some of the above excerpt before excerpting from the part of the interview wherein it's about Adrian Lamo.

Much of the above is stated by JY in the Dec. 9th, 2010 interview on the Alex Jones show, but with some slight differences. Re. the $5mn that JA said needed to be raised, JY said in the interview on the Alex Jones Show Dec. 9th that the $5mn immediately was suspect for pretty much any group, saying only businesses can have successful fund drives of this scale. If it's indeed true that the person or persons heading Wikileaks early on wanted a fund drive to try to get $5mn, then it's pertinent to ask what on Earth this group could possibly have such a large financial need for.

How many small organizations or groups can you name that having fund-raising drives for $5mn over only six months, or that ever state figures anywhere near as high? I don't know of any.

Re. the money raised by Wikileaks for Bradley Manning's defense, I read an article yesterday and what it said is that the organization that was specifically set up for supporting Manning still has [not] received more than around $10,000 or 10,000 pounds (one or the other currency) to date. But an article linked further below and which is of Dec. 8th, 2010 at BradleyManning.org says that [none] of the money that Wikileaks or Julian Assange had pledged last July for the defense of Bradley Manning has been received, to date.

CNET interview, the part of it about Lamo:

What do you think of Wikileaks' spat with Adrian Lamo? You've been publishing some of the correspondence.

Young: None of the stuff that Lamo has made available has been verified. Early on, I said chat logs can be forged, you can make this stuff up. So far there's nothing of substance here. It's a story that's being played. I'm not seeing any credible information that this story has any substance at all other than as a story.

It's being treated almost as if there's something of substance here because the chat logs have come out. But I've not seen any verification. And chat logs are notoriously (easy to) forge by authorities and other people, as with other digital stuff. So I don't know whether there's anything to this or not. But I'm following it because it's kind of a test of how gullible people can be with a good story. And all frauds work that way.

And I think Wikileaks is wary too. I think they're not sure that anything's actually happened here or if they're not being sucked into a trap.

The kind of sacred character of these chat logs is weird. I don't know why anyone believes these have any genuine quality at all, just because Lamo allegedly handed them over.

I saw the two e-mail messages (linked) that you sent to Adrian Lamo. Have you received a response to your questions? [Ed. Note: Lamo, an ex-hacker, says (linked) he tipped off authorities that Manning was leaking classified information.]

Young: Not yet, no. I don't know if I will. But those are questions I would have liked to have asked at (Sunday afternoon's) panel. Except there was no time.

There's lots of interesting things going on if this is a genuine investigation. And since Lamo said (he would be) transparent so everyone would know what was happening, well, I happen to believe the whole legal thing should be transparent too. That was the basis of my questions.

If you want to get transparent, really get transparent. And don't let the feds tell you what you can and cannot do. There are some interesting issues here because the feds don't want this stuff to become public and yet they haven't kept him from talking. So let's see how far he goes. We'd all like to know more about how this is actually working.

There was suspicion from day one that this was entrapment run by someone unknown to suck a number of people into a trap. So we actually don't know. But it's certainly a standard counterintelligence technique. And they're usually pretty elaborate and pretty carefully run. They'll even prosecute people as part of the cover story. That actually was talked about at (Sunday's) panel. They'll try to conceal who was informing and betraying others by pretending to prosecute them.

JY's reply is of sound quality and based in reality, how this world works in terms of the imperialist powers. He could still be using such truthfulness to commit deception, but if he is, or did, then I certainly am neither aware of or responsible for this.

His emails (two) to Adrian Lamo and to which Lamo didn't reply, according to JY anyway, indicate very clearly that JY was supportive of what Adrian Lamo did, though without describing what Lamo had done. A reader who is aware of Lamo having purportedly admitted to turning in Bradley Manning would say that this must be what all of this is about; but the two emails could be about something else or additional things that Lamo said. It's not clear in the emails, for whatever Lamo had said or did is not specified. The emails sent by JY evidently are about Lamo having said that he turned in, "ratted on" Bradley Manning, but maybe he said more to the panel that JY apparently was present at than the public has been informed about; or than I'm aware of, anyway. The page for JY's two emails to Lamo is linked in the CNET article and is at cryptome.org, so JY is clearly not trying to hide the fact that he wrote these texts and that they definitely will leave the impression that he supported Lamo exposing Manning.

If JY really is supportive of exposing whistleblowers, then he'd definitely have to be critically questioned about this. But it's not clear that this is what his support for what Adrian Lamo said at a panel is about. We'd have to know everything Lamo said there and I don't have this information. We'd also need to be able to critically question NY about this.

If you wish to accuse John Young as you have done, then you need to provide some hard evidence for his "guilt by association". The two emails certainly can leave us with the founded impression that JY supported Adrian Lamo exposing Bradley Manning, but impressions aren't sufficient for convicting people. We'd have to know more about this.

Continuing with your post:

You write, "John Young of Cryptome (a well-known and established whistle-blower site)" as if to state that the mere continuance of Young's site Cryptome is proof of its independence. This is not sense: we've had a bogus "government" running our nation for years: its omnipresence hardly qualifies for its trustworthiness.

Cryptome is a well-known whistleblower sort of site, but this is said based on what other writers who've written and said to expose government lies and other malfaisance have lead me to believe because of their references to Cryptome. Being well-known is not meant to mean that [everyone] is aware of the Web site. There are other Web sites that are well-known, but which most people ignore.

And comparing JY and his Web site to the government requires a serious stretch of imagination. Comparing governments to other governments is fitting, but to compare governments to individuals and small groups having no more than the limited power citizens have is not really fitting. I wouldn't treat the two as comparable. We can of course recognize that all human beings have the potential to lie, but no individuals or small groups have the ability to orchestrate and maintain scams and crimes anywhere near the scales that governments do.

Do a Web search, Google, say, of globalresearch.ca for "cryptome" and you'll get links to plenty of articles referring to the Web site, Cryptome. I checked some of the articles and most are by Tom Burghardt, whose Web site is antifascist-calling.blogspot.com. He's a very good writer and one who we can see, from his articles, is [honest].

"Underming the American People's Right to Privacy: The Secret State's Surveillance Machine
Following the Money Trail: Telecoms and ISPs"

by Tom Burghardt, Dec. 10, 2009

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=16497&context=va

(snip)

Cryptome Delivers the Goods, Again

Despite their whining, the indefatigable John Young, webmaster of the intelligence and security whistleblowing web site Cryptome, has published the Yahoo! Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement.

The 17-page handy guide for spooks and cops provides information on what the firm can and will provide the secret state (everything) and what it will cost.

Cryptome, never a site to run from a fight, has also posted the compliance guides of AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Voicestream, Cox, Cingular, SBC, and Pacific Telesis.

(snip)

There's an interview with John Young about Yahoo and I haven't listened to this, yet, having gotten the link only last night. It's the following video of roughly 18 minutes.

"John Young on Alex Jones Tv 1/2: Yahoo Spying on You for Big Brother!!" (10:56)

TheAlexJonesChannel, Dec. 7, 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.

"Surging towards a US-NATO Military Disaster:
Obama's Escalating War in Central and South Asia"

by Tom Burghardt, Feb. 23, 2009

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12412

(snip)

While the Pakistani government has demanded that the U.S. halt drone attacks in the area, The Times discovered "that the CIA has been using the Shamsi airfield -- originally built by Arab sheikhs for falconry expeditions in the southwestern province of Baluchistan -- for at least a year."

The New York-based whistleblowing intelligence and security website Cryptome published a series of satellite images (linked) as part of their "Eyeball" series on February 18. One image, captured in 2006 before construction of a huge hangar meant to conceal America's robot killing machines was completed, show Predator drones on the Shamsi air strip.

According to Cryptome's anonymous correspondent, "This is a very capable base facility with a large hangar in addition to the two Predator support hangars. Nearby is a large secured compound (appears empty) which could support up to a battalion of special ops and associated command and control. The large parking area inside the compound is perfect to land choppers and leave with relative security. All security measures seem fresh."

As I reported February 16, "U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, dropped a bombshell when she revealed that CIA Predator drones are flown from an airbase in Pakistan." Feinstein's disclosure came during hearings February 12 before the Senate Intelligence Committee. While the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) have refused to comment, unnamed "U.S. intelligence officials" described the senator's statement as "accurate."

Despite these revelations, Pakistan's Defense Minister Chaudry Ahmad Mukhtar continues to deny "that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is controlling drone attacks from the Shamsi base in Balochistan, and said Pakistan had no secret understanding with the US to use bases in Pakistan to carry out attacks in the Tribal Areas, according to a February 20 report in Daily Times.

(snip)

"Finding the 'Cure' for the 'Cyber Epidemic'"
by Tom Burghardt, Oct. 31, 2010

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21708

As the "War on Terror" morphs into a multiyear, multitrillion dollar blood-soaked adventure to secure advantage over imperialism's geopolitical rivals (and steal other people's resources in the process), hitting the corporate "sweet spot," now as during the golden days of the Cold War, is as American as a preemptive war and the "pack of lies" that launch them.

Always inventive when it comes to ginning-up a profitable panic, U.S. defense and security grifters have rolled-out a product line guaranteed to scare the bejesus out of everyone: a "cyber epidemic"!

This one has it all: hordes of crazed "communist" Chinese hackers poised to bring down the power grid; swarthy armies of al-Qaeda fanatics who "hate us for our freedom;" "trusted insiders" who do us harm by leaking "sensitive information," i.e. bringing evidence of war crimes and corporate malfeasance to light by spilling the beans to secrecy-shredding web sites like WikiLeaks, Public Intelligence and Cryptome.

And to combat this latest threat to public order, the Pentagon's geek squad, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have launched several new initiatives.

(snip)

Wikileaks.org, publicintelligence.net, and cryptome.org are the links.

"Bunker buster bombs containing depleted uranium warheads used by Israel against civilian targets in Lebanon"

by Dr. Doug Rokke, July 26, 2006

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3748

Dr. Rokke, who is widely known and respected, certainly on the topic of military use of DU anyway (it's all I know about him), concludes with links for references to copies of "the actual regulations and orders and other pertinent official documents" and the links are to traprockpeace.org (known to surely most people who've read a fair amount about the use of DU by the military), access.gpo.gov, and cryptome.org. Cryptome.org provided a copy of a document at access.gpo.gov and I guess this is only for serving as a backup in case the government ever removed this document from its server(s).

"The American Oligarchy, Civil Rights and the Murder of Martin Luther King
The ‘Foundations’ of Social Control"

by Andrew Gavin Marshall, Nov. 30, 2010

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22168

He provides many resource references and the one at Cryptome is for a copy of the following article.

"U.S. MILITARY CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLANNING: THE WAR AT HOME"
by Frank Morales, CovertAction Quarterly, #69 Spring/Summer 2000

The Wikipedia page about the Quarterly magazine, founded by Phil Agee, one of the great CIA whistleblowers, and which apparently hasn't existed for many years is the following.

wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/CovertAction_Quarterly

Andrew Marshall excerpts two short parts from the piece by Frank Morales and it's with respect to the government having moved US military force members into Memphis to be ready to act to "quash urban riots".

The following article also provides a link to the same Cryptome page, for the copy of the above-titled article by Frank Morales.

"US FEMA Camps"
by Geopolitical Monitor, GeopoliticalMonitor.com, Sept. 20, 2007

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7763

EFF.org also has plenty of articles referring to Cryptome and some of the links in the first page of Google search results indicate that these articles linked in the first results page are about Cryptome work.

So cryptome.org is well known, and the above articles at GR as well as what the first page of Google search results for articles at EFF illustrate that Cryptome clearly serves a very good purpose.

It's humanly possible that JY has some sort of jealousy grudge against Wikileaks, but I don't have a clue why that could be since he apparently doesn't have the same criticisms of other Web sites that contribute to exposing government and corporate crimes.

Continuing with your post:

You reference the article, "If We Lose our Internet Freedoms Because of Wikileaks, You Should At Least Know Why". The idea that WikiLeaks would be to blame if it has been infiltrated by the CIA is irrational. In that event, it would be the CIA who was to blame.

That's not the point. The point is [not] to say that Wikileaks would be to blame. Alex Jones says that he thinks Julian Assange would've only been duped, that is, unwittingly used for the "cause" of the imperialists who'd be making use of Wikileaks as well as JA, but this is only if JA has accepted, unwittingly, to work based on influence from these parties. JA has demonstrated being seriously naive, so it's very possible that he's been unwittingly influenced in ways that really are not for "public benefit", while the people influencing him wouldn't have stated that they weren't working or wanting him to work for the public's benefit.

There are what are called alternative media that receive considerable funding from foundations, et cetera, of imperialist elites and this funding that's larger than what individuals can make provides the imperialists using their foundations, et cetera, to have influence over these alternative media. And the same thing happens with what are called humanitarian organizations.

Many organizations called and calling themselves humanitarian actually contribute to covering up the covert crimes and projects lead by the US in a number of African countries, f.e. Many of these organizations that do this can do it unwittingly, but some might be wittingly complicit.

The cables released about Iran, North Korea, China and Washington have all repeated the Washington line and people have treated all of the cables as if they tell "Gospel truth" when many are highly bogus. This is not JA's fault. Wikileaks is only releasing the cables and isn't responsible for them having been written by people at US embassies or anywhere else.

In any case, the cables are not truly revealing information that wasn't already reported. I thought that an article about a cable regarding a Lebanese minister in charge of the military force(s) of that country supposedly having told the US that he'd help with Israeli attacks on Lebanon might be a real revelation, but it might actually be a lie or half-truth.

Every cable that seems to bear any important information must be carefully and thoroughly verified for veracity. The cables are just text and it could be pure fabrication, misinterpretation, or less than sufficiently complete information. None of that can be blamed on Wikileaks.

Who gave JA the idea that a fund-raising drive to try to raise $5MN over only six months or a year for Wikileaks as if this was needed? JY says that when he critically raised this as an issue, he was given the boot from the early Wikileaks mailing list.

And why hasn't Wikileaks provided more than a tiny fraction of funds, if any at all, to the organization created for defending Bradley Manning after Wikileaks initially said they had $1mn for this cause? The CNET article further above says that Julian Assange said on July 17th that Wikileaks had $1mn for Bradley Manning's defense and a few days later Wikileaks asked supporters for another $200,000. And according to another article that I read yesterday, nowhere near this much money was needed for Bradley Manning's defense. Who's doing the math and the bank account management at Wikileaks? Who's the financial "consultant"? One person has left Wikileaks and JY refers to this person by name. If recalling, this person left or was given the boot over financial management issues at Wikileaks. This person is likely referred to in the Dec. 9th interview between JY and Alex Jones.

As far as I know, the organization for supporting the defense of Bradley Manning is BradleyManning.org, and the following article says the organization has received none of the financial contribution that Wikileaks said it would provide. It's a donation, rather than a legal obligation, but Wikileaks had the money, acccording to Julian Assange last July 17th, and none has been delivered.

"Bradley Manning Support Network accepts responsibility for all expenses to defend accused Wikileaks whistle-blower"
Dec. 8, 2010

www.bradleymanning.org/15585/bradley-manning-support-network-accepts-res...

You associate JY with Adrian Lamo based on "guilt by association". What about Bradley Manning having also been associated with Adrian Lamo?

It's possible that Adrian Lamo, who evidently never replied to John Young's two e-mails, was duped or bribed, and if this happened, then neither John Young nor Bradley Manning could have absolutely no responsibility for this. Neither of them can be held responsible for Adrian Lamo's actions and choices.

It also is hypothetically possible that John Young's two emails to Adrian Lamo and to which Lamo has evidently not replied is a scam, a fabrication. Maybe JY never really sent those emails to Lamo at all. Who'd know, besides JY and AL? Well, I'll grant "benefit of the doubt" that JY did send these emails; until he's proven to be lying about this.

Many things are possible with humans. But you provided no links supporting, much less firmly supporting, "guilt by association", and what John Young says about Wikileaks is something we should realize that the government and rich imperialists could certainly do. If Wikileaks is used by the government for it to eventually claim justification for seriously strengthening Internet restrictions on the public, then it's better to be thinking of this ahead of time. Support the concept that Wikileaks is representing, but maybe some caution should be applied, as well.

Wikileaks hasn't provided [any] "bombshell" revelations and hasn't really provided cables telling us anything greatly important. We already had more than enough critically important information to demand the end to the wars and the phony "war on terrorism" long ago.

Your post, again:

The suggestion that a WikiLeaks revelation might cause harm that would then be used to either prosecute the organization of Wikileaks and subsequently journalists in general or curtail liberties on an even broader scale has also been used against Cryptome, such as when Young published the home address of the Director of National Intelligence. Interestingly, Cryptome just ran a piece the other day calling WikiLeaks cowardly for redacting names in order to protect people.

That realization did not escape me when listening to the Dec. 9th, 2010 interview on the Alex Jones Show; but I'm not in a position to be able to question JY about this or any other part of what he said. He said that Cryptome doesn't redact names, so the question of why some people might get killed if names weren't redacted from some, if not many, of the cables being released by Wikileaks came immediately to mind.

But your reference to Cryptome having published something about the Dir. of N.I. without redacting the name and this person not having been endangered because of this is poor comparison. The Dir. of N.I. works where? Washington, or someplace in the US; not in Asia or someplace else where the US is committing extreme crimes against humanity. And anyone can easily and quickly find out who the Dir. of N.I. is.

We can't easily and quickly find out who all of the people in high offices of US embassies are in countries where these people's lives could be possibly endangered. I don't know why disclosing their names would put them in greater danger though. If fighters against the US and NATO in these countries wanted to attack these diplomats, then perhaps attacks would be carried out against the embassy buildings and vehicles when the embassies and vehicles are occupied by people, or when people are entering and leaving these buildings and vehicles.

However, and if I understand correctly, then the redactions weren't made by Wikileaks. What I read said that Wikileaks is using copies that the New York Times provided to Washington for redactions. Or maybe Wikileaks is also performing some redactions.

As for Wikileaks or JA being cowardly, I recall hearing John Young saying this, but would have to listen to this part again to be precisely sure of his complete wording. And if I understand correctly, then people can download the complete set of cables in an archive file of cables that aren't redacted; or maybe they also have been redacted to remove information identifying persons or certain persons. I think to have read that these are complete copies of the cables though.

I think that what John Young meant is that Wikileaks could have demanded that the New York Times, Guardian, UK, and two or three other large media companies publishing the cables, publish the complete cables, without redactions. But I am not going to voice an opinion on this, for I don't know that it'd really make a difference. If the diplomat is the extremely criminal and imperialist John Negroponte, or an ilk, then I'd say to not redact the name; but I'm not ready to say that this should be done for all diplomats.

That part of what JY says is [not] important to me. It's secondary; well, besides calling Julian Assange cowardly. Maybe he is cowardly, but I don't have real and firm proof that he is.

Don't forget that JY emphasizes the need for each person to think for him or -herself and to not blindly trust others when they claim that they can be trusted. And he also calls himself a liar in the third clip for the interview with Alex Jones. He's not telling listeners to accept anything he says in blind faith.

Washington wants us to blindly believe everything it tells us and to trust it more than we trust ourselves, our own senses.

But mostly, the focus on WikiLeaks ignores the central reality that the transnational fascists that run this nation will do whatever they want. When they want to persuade the public, they attempt to do so; and when they want to use a hammer they do so as well. No matter how you slice it, WikiLeaks has little enough to do with their choices.

I never said that Wikileaks directs the choices of Washington and imperialists. It's elementary to realize that Wikileaks plays no such role. But Wikileaks can still be potentially used by them. They make use of what people call humanitarian organizations!

They are always coming up with so-called justifications for increasing police state fascism of this phony "war on terrorism". Bush et al did this regularly. The Bush administration had, f.e., the director of Homeland Security issue increased terror threat alarms many times and the director or now former director has stated this publicly. There's a video at Youtube of him saying this. He says that he knew that raising the terror threat level was either always or else almost always falsely-based, but he did as ordered.

Whenever agreed deadlines for US withdrawal from Iraq approached, the violence in Iraq would suddenly rise a lot, and this was used by Washington to claim that the US had to stay a "little" longer, "justifying" changes or postponements in withdrawal plans or agreements. This violence certainly wouldn't be due to any real Iraqi Resistance groups, for they have always wanted the US [out] and know that increasing violence would give Washington its so-called justification for not leaving. The US war leadership used the so-called civil and sectarian war in Iraq to their advantage, while the civil war didn't even exist. There was some sectarian violence, but [most] Iraqis didn't take the bait and Sunnis and Shi'ites promptly joined together in large public demonstrations demanding that the US [leave]. It was covert black ops and death squads operating under the Iraqi puppet government with definitely full knowledge of and use by US war commanders; as well as UK war commanders. Most Iraqis were not fooled, but people wouldn't know this if they read mostly or only corporate western news media; and most American alternative media repeated the Washington claim of there having been civil war in Iraq without investigating whether this was true, or not. Iraqis weren't fooled, but westerners were, and it's westerners who are the targets of Washington's deceptions.

Wikileaks can be used by them. They make use of organizations popularly called humanitarian! They also make use of large NGO's and news media. Wikileaks did not author the cables being released, but it can be used to serve imperialist purposes; if the team does not have a strong guard against being manipulated or wrongly influenced. Julian Assange has demonstrated being geopolitically naive.

It's not really serving a useful purpose though. Every cable bearing any content that could be of value needs to be analyzed. The veracity and lack thereof in these cables needs to be determined and very few people can do this. Too few people have sufficient geopolitical knowledge to be able to perform this work.

Some of the cables confirm what truthful analysts and reporters about these wars and Washington wrote and said over a period of several or more years, but anyone who read and listened to these people would find that there are no real revelations in the cables released by Wikileaks. And that's for the cables that are verifiably true. The rest is either of no value to begin with, or needs to be carefully verified.

So far, there are too many cables of the kind suitable to Washington targeting certain other countries and these cables can help to reinforce the belief that Washington is right vis-a-vis these countries; for the westerners who already believe that Washington has been right, that is. That's not me and many others, but many Americans blindly believe Washington.

Since the veracity of the cables won't be determined, or most people won't know the results of the verifications, because corporate "news" media isn't likely to report that many of the cables are bogus and can't be trusted; what real good does the release of the cables truly represent? None, really. The one about the coup in Honduras might be potentially usable for prosecutions against the chiefs in Washington, but this is never going to happen, and it was obvious within a month after the coup that Washington acted criminally in this regard; that Washington actually supported this criminal coup. We didn't need this diplomatic cable in order to be able to know this; but it's a cable that describes the coup as it really was, so I won't criticize this cable. It at least shows that the embassy in Honduras was honest and right about the coup.

So since the cables aren't going to serve humanity any real good, why bother publishing them? Maybe the imperialists want these to be published; some of the cables anyway. Only a tiny fraction of the cables to be released have been released, so far, and maybe there won't be more or many more. The governments presently can't prevent people from downloading the complete dataset of cables saved in a single archive file, but they could stop the New York Times, and so on, from publishing even redacted cables; surely. And extremely few people will ever go through the large downloadable archive file containing all of the cables.

The first articles about the then soon-to-commence release of the cables reported that there were going to be 2.8 to 3 million of these cables, but all I'm seeing since the start of this month or maybe before November ended is that the total is roughly 250,000. What happened to the millions of others? It was supposed to be by far the largest dump made by Wikileaks and has since become much smaller than the Iraq War logs, which would've been dwarfed when comparing the number of those logs to the 2.8 or more million cables. Where did the 2.8 to 3 million numbers come from? Was that information from Wikileaks, or fabricated by some news media, or by government officials? From what I recall having read, Julian Assange or else Wikileaks had reported that the total number of cables numbered around 2.8 million; but maybe these were false media reports.

In any case, no article or video I'm aware of says that Julian Assange is definitely and wittingly working with the CIA, et cetera. Activist groups in the US infiltrated by the FBI usually aren't aware of this. The same can be true when it's about influence, which can happen through funding; instead of by sending in undercover infiltrators who pretend to be real activists.

I wouldn't encourage any group that is infiltrated or wrongly influenced to continue to allow itself to be used for corrupt purposes once the influence is established. Instead, the groups and their supporters need to be warned. And they should be warned even when there's lack of certainty. If there's any reason to believe that a group based on good causes is being or is potentially being infiltrated or wrongly influenced, then it is not wrong to inform the group and its supporters of the signs that cause these suspicions.

I prefer to be alerted when there is potential danger in order to continue with caution, rather than to not suspect that there is any potential danger.

John Young's warning is not worth less than the cables released by Wikileaks are. They don't provide any new information for stopping these wars, the phony "war on terrorism", and global US imperialism. We already had all we needed to know.