You are hereBlogs / Stephen Lendman's blog / The New York Times Again Censoring WikiLeaks

The New York Times Again Censoring WikiLeaks

By Stephen Lendman - Posted on 30 November 2010

The New York Times Again Censoring WikiLeaks - by Stephen Lendman

On November 28, WikiLeaks began releasing over 250,000 leaked State Department and US Embassy cables (many designated "secret"), dating from 1966 through end of February 2010. Their content ranges from embarrassing to important revelations about US spying on allies and the UN, ignoring corruption and human rights abuses in "client states," corporate lobbying, backroom dealmaking, disparagements of foreign leaders, and overall revealing a much different America than its public persona. Most of all, it offers more proof of a sham democracy, a lawless imperial state rampaging globally though little, if anything, of a smoking gun nature was disclosed.

Unsurprisingly, the London Guardian said the documents "reveal how the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network, with diplomats tasked to obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flyer numbers, credit card details and even DNA material. Classified 'human intelligence directives' issued in the name of Hillary Clinton or her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, instruct officials to gather information on military installations, weapons markings, vehicle details of political leaders as well as iris scans, fingerprints and DNA."

Washington's "most controversial target was the leadership of the United Nations." One document requested "the specification of telecoms and IT systems used by top UN officials and their staff and details of 'private VIP networks used for official communication, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, (and) personal encryption keys."

Candid comments also revealed disparaging assessments of world leaders. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was called weak, describing her as "risk averse and rarely creative." Her Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, got even harsher treatment, described as incompetent, a man with an "exuberant personality" but little foreign policy experience.

Christopher Dell, US ambassador to Zimbabwe, called President Robert Mugabe "ruthless," "clever," and "to give the devil his due, he is a brilliant tactician." He "will not go down without a fight....he will cling to power at all costs."

Elizabeth Dibble, US charge d'affaires in Rome, called Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader." Another document described him as a "physically and politically weak (leader whose) frequent late nights and penchant for partying hard mean he does not get sufficient rest," the implication being to do his job properly. Still another document said he appears "increasingly the mouthpiece of (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin" in Europe.

Der Spiegel reported more, including:

-- America's disdain for Keynan President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga;

-- Turkey's Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan was called an unreliable "fundamentalist," governing with "a cabal of incompetent advisors in a country....on a path to an Islamist future;"

-- America must "endure the endless tirades of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek, who claims to have known that the Iraq war was the 'biggest mistake ever committed' and who advised the Americans to 'forget about democracy in Iraq,' " recommending a military coup once US forces leave; and

-- Middle east cables "expose the superpower's weaknesses....the world power is often quickly reduced to becoming a plaything of diverse interests," including Arab leaders using their Washington ties to their own advantage.

Other documents expressed high level concerns about Pakistan's growing instability, a clandestine effort to combat Al Qaeda in Yemen, and shifting China/North Korean relations.

Grave fears were revealed about Pakistan's nuclear capability, officials warning of a potential economic collapse and risk of smuggling nuclear material to suspected terrorists.

Another cable discussed Afghan corruption, one alleging that vice president Zai Massoud was carrying $52 million in cash with him when he was stopped during a United Arab Emirates visit.

In still another, Secretary of State Clinton questioned the mental health of Argentina's president.

The Financial Times reported that "The leaks will reinforce suspicions that Israel is considering an attack on Iranian facilities. According to reports of the cables, Ehud Barak, the defense minister, warned in 2009 that the world had six to 18 months to deal with Iran's nuclear programme."

Israel, like Washington, is notorious for crying wolf. If an attack was planned, neither nation would announce it.

An expected revelation ahead is that America for years supported Turkey's Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an organization Washington and Ankara designated a terrorist group. Regional expert, Mehmet Yegin from the Center for American Studies at the USAK research organization, told the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet that "US support for the PKK could have been a result of Turkey's decision in 2003 not to allow the United States to enter Iraq through Turkish soil."

Still more cables about:

-- a senior Politburo official orchestrating hacker attacks that forced Google to leave China;

-- allegations about Russia giving Silvio Berlusconi lavish gifts and lucrative energy contracts;

-- others about Russian intelligence using mafia bosses to conduct criminal operations, one cable describing "a virtual mafia state;"

-- sharp Pentagon criticism of Britain's military in Afghanistan;

-- inappropriate British royal family member comments about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country;

-- criticism of UK Prime Minister David Cameron and requests for intelligence information on individual MPs;

-- various corruption accusations;

-- US Honduran ambassador Hugo Llorens calling the June 2009 coup "illegal and unconstitutional;"

-- Russia offering Israel $1 billion for drone technologies, saying it would also cancel its sale of advanced S-300 missiles to Iran;

-- harsh criticism of US embassy staff in the Caribbean, China, Russia and elsewhere;

-- saying Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "driven by paranoia;"

-- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called another Hitler; so is Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein before his capture and hanging, and other leaders earlier so vilified to hype fear about them;

-- various Arab leaders, including Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, urging Washington to bomb Iran to destroy its nuclear capability;

-- Saudi donors named as the biggest financiers of terror groups;

-- discussion of a Washington/Yemen coverup over using US planes to bomb suspected Al Qaeda targets;

-- a description of a rogue enriched uranium shipment causing a near "environmental disaster" in 2009;

-- technical details of US/Russian secret nuclear missile negotiations in Geneva; and much more besides new material to be released.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange provided the documents to the London Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel, France's Le Monde, Spain's El Pais, and The New York Times.

Censorship - Standard New York Times Practice

After last July's "Afghan War Diaries" release, The Times collaborated with White House officials to sanitize it, clearing it in advance before publishing. Its Washington bureau chief, Dean Baquet, confirmed that he and two reporters (Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt) "did in fact (tell them) what we had," Obama officials "prais(ing) us for the way we handled it, giving them a chance to discuss it, and for handling the information with care. And for being responsible."

Afterwards, editor Bill Keller wrote this to readers:

"The administration, while strongly condemning (the release), did not suggest (we not) write about them. On the contrary, in our discussions....while challenging some of (our) conclusions....thanked us for handling the documents with care (read sanitizing disturbing truths), and asked us to urge WikiLeaks to withhold information that could cost lives. We did pass along that message."

In addition, he concealed daily war crimes, including mass civilian deaths, many willfully committed. Also, Task Force 373, death squad assassins killing suspected insurgents, cold-blooded murder The Times suppresses, collaborating with imperial lawlessness.

Instead, it focused on "Pakistan's Double Game," a July 27 editorial "confirm(ing) a picture of Pakistani double-dealing that has been building for years," saying "If Mr. Obama cannot persuade Islamabad to cut its ties to, and then aggressively fight, the extremists in Pakistan, there is no hope of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan." The Times, of course, supports US imperial wars, including the Afghan and Iraq quagmires.

On November 29, The Times published "A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents," saying:

Released documents are either marked "secret," "noforn" (not to be shared with other countries' representatives), "secret/noforn," "confidential," or unclassified. "Most were not intended for public view, at least in the near term."

"The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger (read expose) confidential informants or compromise national security (read reveal Washington's imperial agenda). The Times redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit (read sanitize) the documents they planned to post online."

"After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest (again reveal America's true agenda - global imperial destructiveness). After reviewing the cables, (officials) suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all."

The Times said it will post only about 100 cables, some redacted, others in full, "that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy," but will follow White House instructions in do doing.

The "newspaper of record," of course, is a longstanding imperial tool, the closest equivalent in America to an official ministry of information and propaganda, what Times editors and bosses know but won't say.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.


Am I ever glad that the NY Times is interested in not "costing lives." Someone needs to tell the editors that we have ongoing wars that they hyped in Iraq and Afghanistan that have cost lots and lots of lives. Somehow I don't think that the NY Times or the administration are really all that concerned about lives (sort of like the "pro-life" crowd).

Don't worry about needing to think. Instead, you can [know], you can be [certain] that they definitely are not concerned about other peoples' lives; well, except for the lives of their own ilk and masters, of course. There's absolutely no reason to doubt. They [definitely] don't care about innocent people. They [definitely] don't care about deliberately lying to and thereby deceiving those of us gullible enough to swallow the poisonous baits, spins from Washington and its media network.

Their lies are not accidental mistakes. And there's plenty of highly criminal conspiracy. One example illustrating that there was conspiracy is from when Colin Powell spoke before the UNGA in Feb. 2003 and claimed that trailers in the middle of some desert area in Iraq were used for making WMD, with no visible evidence of this; for all we could see wad desert sand and the exterior shell of the trailer(s). It was reported that he initially opposed doing this or opposed the idea of war on Iraq, but was then persuaded to coem back into the "fold". Another example is the whole Bush administration performing as a trained or prepared choir, prepared for claiming the lies about Saddam Hussein having WMD, that he was a threat to the countries of the Middle East and also to England, even, in addition to him having been involved in 9/11 through his (non-existant) relationship with Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. This choir was prepared conspiratorially.

That was not accidental. They knew what they were doing.

It can take some thinking to formulate an argument, but we don't have to waste any time with thinking about whether, or not, Washington and its media network pundits are concerned about innocent people, because they clearly are definitely not concerned.

I won't be shy about it. Instead, I'll call an ace an ace, a spade a spade, Washington evil, and so on.

"Gerald Celente on WikiLeaks - Cablegate" (4:51)
GeraldCelenteChannel, Nov. 30, 2010

He's interviewed on Russia Today or some RT program anyway and he strongly defends Wikileaks releasing the over 200,000 diplomatic, embassy cables; very strongly defends this and emphasizes that it's information that [must] be provided to the public. And he's definitely persuasive. He says the government of the US claims to be transparent, but acting as it is presently doing regarding the new Wikileaks release proves that the government's claims about being transparent are lies, which everyone should've already realized, but while there evidently have been many who didn't. For transparency of real kind Wikileaks must be supported in the release of the over 200,000 cables.

He also says what we can be expecting and which is that people are threatening to kill Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, blowing his brains out, and that the US Congress calls this release terrorism.

I don't see a problem with the release of these cables, so far, and am not expecting that we'll get anything truly news-revealing. Everyone should already have known for a very long time now that the government is full of lies, hypocrisy, racket, and so on. But what the release of the cables will evidently provide is [concrete] evidence, as opposed to us stating our observations and our analyses or deductions based on our observations. The latter could be treated as "conspiracy theories" and/or merely speculation, but now we should have some good concrete evidence with the release of these cables; I think or guess.

Many people will surely learn things newly (for themselves) from these cables, and I'd surely learn of things that I did not previously know; with enough reading of these cables. But we've had people who've greatly become whistleblowers who risked exposing "black" covert ops and other crimes and criminal corruption of the US; John Maxwell, Philip Agee, Ralph McGehee and a few or several other former CIA agents and officers; Michel or Michael Levine, formerly an agent of the DEA; Mike C. Ruppert, formerly of the LAPD; and John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and a subsequent book, if not more than one, on US empire, etc. And there've been some other people.

Plus, common sense, some real "street smarts" would permit us to discern when there's foulness in what political leaders tell us. This was all I needed to be immediately opposed to talks of war on Kosovo in 1999, Iraq in 2003, and Afghanistan in 2001. The reason for that mixed chronological ordering is because of the more special nature of the war on Afghanistan. While it was, according to Bush et al and what most Americans believed, due to the 9/11 attacks, I was against it, and Bush had said that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, but the war was being launched on them. Common sense sufficed to be opposed, immediately so, to all three of these wars. I didn't know about the GHW Bush war on Iraq in 1990-1991 until after it was launched, so couldn't have been immediately opposed to it during run-up talks about if; if there were any mentions of it before the war machine of the US was launched, anyway. I'm always against war. Defense can be necessary, but war absolutely [never] is.

"War is a Lie" - David Swanson. "War is a Racket" - Major General Smedley Butler. "Politics is full of hypocrisy" - some real or imaginary philosopher of ancient times, perhaps Greek.

Nevertheless, this new Wikileaks release should make for some interesting reading and news over the coming months. They'll spice "things" up a bit. Variety is the spice of life, some people have said, and we'll now be getting some variety.

Watch the Washington spin machine function in high gear. Writers for NYT and so on will be very busy writing up and publishing spin for Washington. It shall be [entertaining]; occasionally angering, also, but always entertaining. What isn't entertaining is when members of the public blindly believe the spins of deceit.

Update: Also see my last post further below, post #5 when adding this update. That additional post has links to and excerpts from several articles and some are [defense] for what Wikileaks is doing. There are also some videos.

Excellent article, btw!

On November 28, WikiLeaks began releasing over 250,000 leaked State Department and US Embassy cables (many designated "secret"), dating from 1966 through end of February 2010.

Wikileaks says over 15,000 are of "secret" classification and that's certainly many. It might not seem like many when considering the total number of cables that'll be released by Wikileaks, but over 15,000 "secret" cables has to nevertheless be many for this level of classification.

The statistical breakdown of the number of cables by classification is given in's Cable Viewer page under the subheading of "Key figures".

Stephen Lendman correctly says that the total number of these cables is "over 250,000", but some people are saying 300,000 and/or more. The above Cablegate page's "Key Figures" provides a total of 251,287; roughly 250,000.

Unsurprisingly, the London Guardian said the documents "reveal how the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network, .... Classified 'human intelligence directives' issued in the name of Hillary Clinton or her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, instruct officials to gather information on military installations, weapons markings, vehicle details of political leaders as well as iris scans, fingerprints and DNA."

Now what purpose is there for the US to know "vehicle details of political leaders"? Might it be for plotting assassinations; perhaps like happened with former Lebanese PM Rafiq al-Hariri in Lebanon, f.e.? What other reason could the US possibly have for wanting to know details of the vehicles of political leaders?

"Iris scans, fingerprints and DNA" of who; political leaders, again? If for political leaders, then what's the purpose? There's no valid reason, I believe.

Re. using US embassies for spying:

US consulates are sometimes also used for bringing people the US State Department alleges are terrorists or members of terrorist groups, organizations to the US. See videos with Michael Springman, sometimes spelled Springmann, at Youtube. People who have not listened to what he's exposed definitely need to view some of these videos and very carefully listen to what he says. Choose the longest ones findable.

If in doubt about what he says in those videos, then also make sure to listen to videos at Youtube, maybe some longer ones at Google, with Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, former member of the former Able Danger team that was specifically mandated to track Al Qaeda worldwide and the team included the US in this tracking.

People who carefully learn what both of those two people say and still don't believe what they say are "lost causes", "beyond hope" (or redemption).

Washington's "most controversial target was the leadership of the United Nations." One document requested "the specification of telecoms and IT systems used by top UN officials and their staff and details of 'private VIP networks used for official communication, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, (and) personal encryption keys."

That was reported some years ago, though maybe that reporting was only about the US spying, technologically, on communications of representatives of state members of the UN, rather than on all UN officials, who, I guess, would include directors of the UNHRC, UNICEF, and other UN agencies or departments. Or maybe they're they only ones meant by "UN officials", so excluding rep's of states that are members of the UN, in which case the reporting of years ago and the new Wikileaks release combine for a more complete "picture" of all of this spying by the US.

Candid comments also revealed disparaging assessments of world leaders. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was called weak, describing her as "risk averse and rarely creative."

Conservative, iow? It's good to not be hasty when risks are involved, so being averse to risk is good, as long as it doesn't get to the point that it psychologically blocks a person from making good, beneficial decisions. The US has little to complain about her though. She got and kept the German military part of NATO involved in the criminal war on Afghanistan, f.e.

And if Washington was less "creative", in its way of being "creative", then it would be less [criminal], rogue. What'd be wrong with that?!

Her Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, got even harsher treatment, described as incompetent, a man with an "exuberant personality" but little foreign policy experience.

That's alright, let the US say that, because in referring to him in the above way the US "leadership" makes a serious mockery of itself. US "leadership" clearly doesn't know the first thing to know about "foreign policy", which is to co-operatively work with other countries, to not be a hegemonic, hypocritical, imperialist, and so on, superpower, et cetera.

These so-called "disparaging" views US "leadership" has been concretely exposed of having about other countries political officials will give us material for laughing at, rather than with, the US "leadership"; and laughter is good.

We could and should have already known that US "leadership" was this way, but the cables being released by Wikileaks will provide proof for people who refused to realize what was rather obvious, before. It's been obvious for a very long time, decade[s] (plural!) that US "leadership" is extremely arrogant, egotistical, and so on, and these types of people usually don't have great views of people they try to use as puppet allies.

Christopher Dell, US ambassador to Zimbabwe, called President Robert Mugabe "ruthless," "clever," and "to give the devil his due, he is a brilliant tactician." He "will not go down without a fight....he will cling to power at all costs."

Use the following line in the search box at Google and then click Search. You'll get plenty of articles, while I'll refer to a couple of Keith Harmon Snow's articles.

"Robert Mugabe"

"Blood Diamond:
Double Think and Deception Over Those Worthless Little Rocks of Desire"

Rick Hines and keith harmon snow

Part One appeared June 1, 2007 in Z Magazine (link)
Minor corrections and adjustments July 20, 2007

Blood Diamond is a Hollywood film depicting horrific bloodshed in West Africa, in 1999, spawned by the lust for diamonds. The film opens with the understatement that "thousands have died and millions have become refugees." But more than 70,000 people died in Sierra Leone's war. The film immediately segues to a palatial boardroom in Antwerp, Belgium, to the G-8 Conference on diamonds. The all-white executives are ostensibly concerned, holding worried discussions about...the fate of people? Africa's people?


At the end of the film a disclaimer tells us that in 2003 the international community -- those G-8 executives "partnered" with the diamond industry -- established formal mechanisms to control the flow of conflict diamonds. The film's disclaimer parrots the line of the World Diamond Council, an international organization created by the diamond industry. Both assure consumers that more than 99% of rough stones today come from conflict-free sources, thanks to the United Nations-mandated Kimberley Process--a voluntary self-regulation scheme where the industry crafts 'passport' documents certifying all stones as conflict free. According to the people who profit from diamonds, the blood diamonds problem is passé.[1]

"It's not passé," says Father Rocco Puopolo of the Africa Faith and Justice Network. ...

Looking behind the scenes of the movie -- and behind the sparkle of the World Diamond Council -- we are reminded of George Orwell's novel 1984, where the character Winston falsifies news to peddle the Party's propaganda. ...

Is the diamond industry peddling Orwellian diamondthink? ...

To be sure we understand that, the WDC in 2006 launched a blitzkreig advertising campaign -- full-page ads in the New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune -- touting the self-policing successes of the Kimberley Process. The campaign was presumably coordinated to counter the supposed "negative publicity" of the Blood Diamond film.

To shore up lover's hearts in the pre-Christmas '06 diamond rush, the New York Times echoed the WDC's statement, adding that diamond revenues today bring health care, education and development to African countries, those emerging nations. ...

Are blood diamonds merely polished by public relations? The Kimberly Process was launched under the narrow definition that "conflict diamonds" only originate from conflicts between 'rebels' and 'governments': it refers to smuggling by militias antagonistic to 'legitimate' member governments. But the examples of Angola and Zimbabwe illustrate how the new rules are used against immigrants, refugees and poor citizen miners. This is the essence of diamondthink: truth and lie are inseparable, with deadly consequences.

My True Love Took from Thee

In Angola they are called artisanos or garimpeiros, and they are literally mining for their lives: garimpeiros in Angola are forced into 'illegal' mining because Angola's mining security companies push people off their own land. While agriculture and commerce in the region require the direct authorization of the Provincial Governor, not one artisano has been granted a license for diamond exploration or subsistence agriculture. The 'legitimate' government of Angola forces desperate people to resort to 'illegal' activities to survive. [3]

Three private military companies -- PMCs -- have been targeting garimpeiros in Angola. The mercenary firms Alfa-5, Teleservices, and K&P Mineira defend Angola's big name diamond firms like Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Mineiro (Sodiam), Sociedade Mineira de Cuango, and Sociedade Mineira Luminas. ...

Sodiam works with the Russo-Israeli Lev Leviev Group. ...


Betrayal is Forever

Zimbabwe is the epitome of diamondthink. From December 2006 to January 2007, Zimbabwe's police executed Operation Chikorokoza -- .... ...

Robert Mugabe's cronies and their international benefactors have destabilized and depopulated DRC, looting copper, cobalt, timber, uranium and diamonds. Mugabe's Zanu-PF party in recent years crashed the international media scene for evicting white farmers under 'land reform', but untouched are the largest landholders: multinational corporations. Mugabe seized power in 1981 on the empty promise of land reform. In the 1980's Mugabe and his "liberation" army terrorized the Ndebele people under the Gukurahundi--a bona fide genocide. After arming Mugabe's gang, the international "community" closed its eyes to the slaughter; attempts to break the story were squashed in Britain and the U.S.[9] Equally invisible are Mugabe's ties to international arms dealer John Bredenkamp, one of the 50 richest Britons, worth $1 billion, tied to BAE Systems (British Aerospace) and the U.S. state department, and Billy Rautenbach, another Western mining cartel crony and white patron of Mugabe.[10] (my emphasis)

The World Diamond Council "expressed concern" about Zimbabwe's complicity in pillaging and smuggling rough diamonds from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) into neighboring South Africa for onward sale into the world market under fraudulent certificates of origin.[11] But the threat of sanctions against Zimbabwe is not about diamonds: while international capital is isolating and punishing Zimbabwe's intransigent President, Robert Mugabe, other criminal diamond networks and racketeering of equal scale and nature will be tolerated.

Angola and Zimbabwe exemplify the process whereby an international certification scheme enforced by the United Nations rubber stamps boxes of rough stones according to their 'country of origin.' Stamped 'Angola' or 'Zimbabwe' the public is assured that these diamonds are now 'conflict free,' because these nations are members of the Kimberley certification. Coming from 'governments'--and not 'rebels' or 'militias'--consumers can be at peace as they slip a diamond on their fiancé's finger.

What Clinton (Lovers) Will Never See


Reference 9 in the third-to-last paragraph excerpted, above, is for the following article.

Mugabe’s Gang and Genocide in Zimbabwe"

by keith harmon snow, undated Betrayal ZIMBABWE.htm

That article is undated, but was apparently written in either 2000, during or after June 2000, or early 2001, for he writes of "recent coverage of the 2000 parliamentary elections in June" and a more recent year is not specified in the whole piece, which is relatively short. Anyone wanting to read the article, however, would be much better off using the .doc file copy obtainable from the following page, which provides the html link for the above copy, and a link for the .doc copy, which is obtained by clicking on the title of the piece in this next page (an index of two of his old articles on Zimbabwe).

Plenty of articles at refer to Robert Mugabe, who's being demonized by the US since relatively recently, but only for reasons that are customarily evil of the US. It definitely isn't because the US has become noble; [far] from it.

Commenting a little more on Stephen Lendman's article:

-- Middle east cables "expose the superpower's weaknesses....the world power is often quickly reduced to becoming a plaything of diverse interests," including Arab leaders using their Washington ties to their own advantage.

Well, that's both good and bad news. It's good, because we certainly don't want to be a superpower capable of always getting its way and always wanting to do everything US "leadership" desires without being at all impeded. The bad is that the US must not be serving the interests of anyone, except Americans, and true defense of human rights, the UN Charter, this sort of reality that should exist, but doesn't.

In still another, Secretary of State Clinton questioned the mental health of Argentina's president.

Clinton, actually both Clintons, need to question their own mental health. How can sociopaths, or psychopaths, be entrusted with evaluation of other people's mental health? Certainly not according to my book of health guidelines.

The Financial Times reported that "The leaks will reinforce suspicions that Israel is considering an attack on Iranian facilities. According to reports of the cables, Ehud Barak, the defense minister, warned in 2009 that the world had six to 18 months to deal with Iran's nuclear programme."

Israel, like Washington, is notorious for crying wolf. If an attack was planned, neither nation would announce it.

The latter paragraph is surely reality-based, but if Israel attacks Iran, then the US will be rightly blamable, for there presently are only two routes that Israeli bombers could fly to Iran, one route being over Iraq, which is air space directly and totally controlled by the US, the other route being through Turkish air space. And the latter air space is not controlled by the US, but the US would know that Israel is going to commit an aerial attack on Iran, and if the US didn't know this before the attack planes took off from the ground, then the US would quickly learn of it once the planes were in flight and on route through Turkish air space. That would give the US, and its European allies, sufficient time to notify Israel to call off the attack and if this was not done, then all of these countries, certainly the US, could be held as responsible parties, rather complicit, for they have the legal obligation to demand Israeli call-back or stand-back, stand-down, how ever people wish to call it.

Imo, it would be right to hold the US as complicit in either case, regardless of which of the two routes Israeli attack planes took or flew, for it is because of the US that Israel has been repeatedly protected from UNSC resolutions being applied, the US is the biggest financial and probably military supplier, and there are possibly other aspects or relational aspects that I'm not thinking of and, therefore, not mentioning.

And if that happens and Iran does retaliate, while believing as above about the US, then not only will Israel be hit, US forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf will also be hit, which is surely something US "leadership" would want to avoid. Even if the US could then destroy Iran, the US "leadership" surely wouldn't want to be hit as hard as Iran can strike. Iran apparently has quite a weapons arsenal that could be immediately used.

Also, and according to articles, news and feature articles, at over the past few days, the US leadership might be presently more focused on North Korea and if this so-called leadership is and they do escalate to outright war on NK, or do it through SK and then come to SK's "rescue", to back it up, then perhaps this US leadership definitely wouldn't want simultaneous war actions committed against or on Iran. That would give this so-called leadership more motive for ordering Israel to not attack Iran and the Israeli so-called leadership would surely comply, because they most definitely [need] the corrupt US government's backing.

If Israel ever lost or loses the protection, et cetera, guaranteed by the US, so far, then surely all European governments and the Canadian one that have been backing the US in this would also withdraw their support and protection for Israel. Israeli leadership strategically couldn't take this risk.

The "newspaper of record," of course, is a longstanding imperial tool, the closest equivalent in America to an official ministry of information and propaganda, what Times editors and bosses know but won't say.

Of course, the NYT is an "extension" of the government, the or one of the government's propaganda agency outlets. I don't recall who the author was or is, perhaps John Pilger, but read a piece over the past two or three months in which the author referred to the corporate media in the US as an [extension] of the government, and the media really does work that way; often.

The NYT publishing only 100 cables out of over 200,000 is a blatantly sick joke. The NYT should simply not publish any records, if it's going to publish this little.

Another sick joke is as I once read, about the NYT being the corporate media of the American "left". It's not that statement of observed reality that is the sick joke; the NYT and the so-called "left" are.

"Leaked document: Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak tells US to attack Iran, N. Korea"

by, Nov. 30th, 2010

It's a very short, tiny article.

The New York Times published a number of documents from a planned Wikileaks release on Sunday evening, including one regarding Defense Minister Ehud Barak's views on the peace process and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The document, dated June 2, 2009 and sent from the American Embassy in Tel Aviv, details Barak's visit with a two Congressional delegations. It quotes Barak as saying that "'no option should be removed from the table' when confronting Iran and North Korea."

"Barak asked rhetorically how a lack of firm response to North Korea would be interpreted by Iran's leadership, speculating the US government would be viewed as a 'paper tiger'," the diplomatic cable reads.

Now that's a real LAUGH after having read what Stephen Lendman's article reports about the NYT on this Wikileaks release of roughly 250,000 cables.

"Wikileaks and the New Global Order: America’s Wake-up Call"
by Jonathan Cook, Nov. 30th, 2010

He's a very good reporter and writer, btw; for people who don't know of his articles. He lives in Nazareth, unless he's moved to a different location in Israel. And he doesn't specifically refer to the cables being released by Wikileaks, but some of them evidently are about or related to the US and/or South Korea escalation of tensions with North Korea, and this would increase tensions with China; possibly also Russia.

"New WikiLeaks Documents Expose US Foreign Policy Conspiracies"

by David Walsh,, Nov. 29th, 2010

Some of this above article is redundant after reading Stephen Lendman's piece, but I think it contains some additional information.

And I think provides articles that are more worthwhile.

"Interpol Issues ‘Red Notice’ for Arrest of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange"

by Kevin Poulsen,, Nov. 30th, 2010

The international police organization Interpol has issued a Red Notice for the arrest of WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange, in connection with a sex crime investigation in Sweden.

A Red Notice is kind of international wanted poster seeking the provisional arrest of a fugitive, with an eye towards extradition to the nation that issued the underlying arrest warrant. Interpol transmits the notices to its 188 member countries, including Britain, where Assange is believed to be located. Interpol has no authority to compel a subject’s arrest. It issued 5,020 Red Notice last year for a variety of crimes.

A terse extract of Assange’s notice (linked) appeared on Interpol’s website Tuesday, without a photograph, reporting that the 39-year-old Australian is wanted for "sex crimes" by the International Public Prosecution Office in Gothenburg, Sweden.

A Swedish judge on Nov. 18 ordered Assange "detained in absentia" to answer questions in a rape, coercion and molestation investigation in Stockholm. A court approved an international arrest warrant for the ex-hacker two days later, at which point Sweden reportedly applied to Interpol for the Red Notice. Assange’s lawyer appealed the detention order to the Svea Court of Appeal, but lost. Assange filed a new appeal Tuesday (linked) to the Swedish Supreme Court.

The investigation stems from separate encounters Assange had with two women during his August visit to Sweden, where he was applying for Swedish residency and attempting to secure the protection of Swedish free-press laws for his secret-spilling website. According to local news reports, the women told investigators the sexual encounters began as consensual, but turned non-consensual. One woman said Assange ignored her appeals to stop when the condom broke.

Assange has denied any wrongdoing, and hinted that the complaints are the result of a U.S. "smear campaign" targeting WikiLeaks — leading some supporters of the group to publicly investigate the two women and their families.

(snip - photo of Julian Assange at a press conference in Geneva)


The Obama administration is exploring possible criminal charges against Assange under the Espionage Act, The Washington Post reported Monday (linked) — in what would be a virtually unprecedented move against a journalistic organization.


From what I recall of what Julian Assange said in a video about these "sex charges", he literally or explicitly said it's a "smear campaign", which the US rather obviously would be very much keyly behind, we can easily deduce.

If he was with the two women referred to, however, then he better learn to be much more careful about women he frequents. He's a wanted man, by imperialists, and any woman he meets with privately and wishes to make a sizable bundle of money under the table, covertly, is a risk factor for him.

"PRESS RELEASE: US proxy war in Yemen exposed by Wikileaks revelations"

by Cageprisoners Editor,, Nov. 30th, 2010

The release of 'secret’ US State Department documents has revealed that the US has been conducting a proxy war in Yemen with the agreement of the Yemeni authorities. Until this time, the US has been very keen to distance itself from any accusation that it has been behind the programme of targeted assassinations in Yemen.

The revelations show that there has been a direct agreement between the two countries that the US army would be permitted to bomb suspected al-Qaeda targets and evidently will not be held to account. Rather, as another revealed cable explicitly states, that the Yemen government will take responsibility for any bombing operations conducted by the US, the Yemeni president Abdullah Saleh explicitly stating, "We’ll continue saying they are our bombs, not yours."


Cageprisoners will be raising the issue with the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings in order to highlight the disgraceful way in which the US is currently conducting its operations and the serious breaches of international law.


Video: The following article has a video with it.

"Julian Assange Says Document Dump Targets 'Lying, Corrupt and Murderous Leadership'
Wikileaks Chief Promises to Reveal Many More Government Secrets."



He was undaunted by vows from the U.S. and Australia to prosecute him and said the forthcoming diplomatic cables are aimed at "lying, corrupt and murderous leadership from Bahrain to Brazil."

"We're only one thousandth of the way in and look at what has so far being revealed. There will be many more," he wrote defiantly.

Assange also dismissed a warning today by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who said the dump of secret documents "puts peoples lives in danger," particularly those sources who provided the U.S. with information about abuses in foreign countries.

"U.S. officials have for 50 years trotted out this line when they are afraid the public is going to see how they really behave," Assange said in his email. "The facts are that we wrote to the State Department asking for a list of any specific concerns that might have. They refused to assist, and said they demanded everything, including those documents that revealed abuses, be destroyed."

The Obama administration's top diplomat and lawyer put Wikileaks and Assange on alert today, promising to prosecute any individual, regardless of nationality, who broke U.S. law by making public hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic cables.

"[To] the extent that we can find anybody involved of breaking American law who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described…they will be held responsible. They will be held accountable," Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference.

Clinton called the release of hundreds of thousands of secret cables "not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests [but] an attack on the international community: the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity."

"Some mistakenly applaud those responsible," Clinton said. "There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people… nothing brave about sabotaging peaceful relations between nations."

Holder said he advocates closing any gaps in current U.S. legislation that would prevent the federal government from fully prosecuting a foreign national like Assange, who published secrets of vital American national interest.

"To the extent that there are gaps in our laws, we will work to close those gaps. Which is not to say… that anybody at this point because of their citizenship or their residence is not a target for or subject of the investigation that's ongoing."

"Let me be clear," the attorney general said. "It is not saber rattling. This is an active ongoing investigation."

Rep. Pete King Wants Wikileaks Declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization


Holder's declaration that he would seek to hold Wikileaks responsible was met with praise from across the aisle.

Rep. Peter King, R- NY, said he supported the efforts Holder was taking and said Assange's "purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."


The latest batch of documents span a variety of communications ranging from flippant remarks about foreign leaders to deadly serious security concerns.

Wikileaks Documents: Fears Over Iran and Missiles

Many of the sensitive cables deal with the imminent threat from Iran, revealing that the U.S. now believes Iran has missiles, obtained from North Korea, capable of striking Western Europe. Fearing mounting danger, Arab leaders are seen pleading with the U.S. to do something.

Saudi Arabia wants the U.S. to intervene against an ascendant nuclear Iran, but is unwilling to confront a fellow Muslim country or sacrifice its own citizens, suggested Defense Secretrary Robert Gates at a meeting with French envoys, according a secret diplomatic cable recently made public.

During a conversation with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in 2008 about encouraging China to sign a resolution condemning Iran, Gates said the Saudis "always want to 'fight the Iranians to the last American,' but that now it is time for them to get into the game," according the cable.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah repeatedly urges the U.S. to "cut the head off the snake." The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates says "Ahmadinejad is Hitler" and told one U.S. top State Department official that "the threat from al Qaeda would be minor if Iran has nukes."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that the leak would not affect his country's policy to any other countries, The Associated Press reported.

The cables also reveal the delicacy of negotiations with Iran over the release of the three American hostages taken prisoner last year. One of the hostages, Sarah Shroud was released this summer.


Some of the documents also reveal a diplomatic struggle with Pakistan over nuclear proliferation -- a disagreement that Hoekstra said had no business in the public sphere.


Assange has given hints of what is still to come from Wikileaks, claiming in a statement the U.S. spies on its allies, turns a "blind eye" to corruption and human rights abuse and "makes backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries and lobbying for U.S. corporations."

ABC News' Jake Tapper contributed to this report.

What Robert Gates says, according to the above excerpt, regarding Saudi political leadership wanting the US to strike Iran is, I believe, not to be believed in blind fashion. It could be only more Washington fabrications. Until we have concrete proof that Saudi so-called leadership really has said, behind closed doors, that they want the US to strike Iran or for the US to allow Israel to do this, I won't believe that Gates was doing anything unusual, which, for him, would be speaking truthfully.

And what's omitted from the above excerpt(s) is mostly of value, but ABC writers or news pundits should not write or speak, in their own words, as if Washington is right. There's little of that in the article, but even a little of such bs is unfitting for truthfulness or being truly neutral, truly analytical in honest terms, and so on.

Video: The following article, for which the link was obtained from a copy at Uruknet, has two embedded videos and the first one (0:30) is "a clip from South of the Border, in which Scott Wilson, formerly foreign editor of the Washington Post, describes the "involvement" of the US in the coup in Venezuela". The second video is a very short clip, 1:10, "from South of the Border in which President Morales talks with Oliver Stone about the role of the media". The first video is about the coup in Venezuela, 2002, and Scott Wilson says that he certainly believes that the US was involved. John Pilger's film, "War on Democracy", is stronger on that topic, if recalling correctly; and there's a 94-minute videos for it at Google, veoh, and some other Web sites.

"WikiLeaks Honduras: State Department Busted on Support of Coup"

by Robert Naiman,, Nov. 30th, 2010

By July 24, 2009, the US government was totally clear about the basic facts of what took place in Honduras on June 28, 2009. The US embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable (linked, NYT) to Washington with the subject, "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." The embassy listed arguments being made by supporters of the coup to claim its legality, and dismissed them thus: "None ... has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution." The Honduran military clearly had no legal authority to remove President Manuel Zelaya from office or from Honduras, the embassy said, and their action - the embassy described it as an "abduction" and "kidnapping" - was clearly unconstitutional.

It is inconceivable that any top US official responsible for US policy in Honduras was not familiar with the contents of the July 24 cable, which summarized the assessment of the US embassy in Honduras on key facts that were politically disputed by supporters of the coup regime. The cable was addressed to Tom Shannon, then assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs; Harold Koh, the State Department's legal adviser; and Dan Restrepo, senior director for western hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council. The cable was sent to the White House and to Secretary of State Clinton.

But despite the fact that the US government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the US did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by US law.

Instead, a month after this cable was sent, the State Department, in its public pronouncements, pretended (linked) that the events of June 28 - in particular, "who did what to whom" and the constitutionality of these actions - were murky and needed further study by State Department lawyers, despite the fact that the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, knew exactly "who did what to whom" and that these actions were unconstitutional at least one month earlier. The State Department, to justify its delay in carrying out US law, invented a legal distinction between a "coup" and a "military coup," claiming that the State Department's lawyers had to determine whether a "military coup" took place, because only that determination would meet the legal threshold for the aid cutoff.


But the July 24 cable shows that this was nonsense. The phrase "military coup" occurs nowhere in the document, a remarkable omission in a cable from the embassy presenting its analysis of the June 28 events' constitutionality and legality one month after the fact, if that were a crucial distinction in assessing US policy. And indeed, initial press reports on the statements of top US officials in response to the coup made no such distinction, (linked) using the descriptions "coup" and "military coup" interchangeably.


As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted in an August 2009 report, (linked) in the previous 12 months the US had responded to other coups by cutting US aid within days. In these cases - in Africa - there was no lengthy deliberation on whether a "coup" was a "military coup."

What was the difference?


Why does this matter now?

First, the constitutional and political crisis in Honduras is ongoing, and the failure of the US to take immediate, decisive action in response to the coup was a significant cause of the ongoing crisis. ...

Second, the relationship of actual US policy - as opposed to rhetorical pronouncements - to democracy in the region is very much a live issue from Haiti to Bolivia.

Yesterday there was an election in Haiti. ... The Washington Post reports (linked) that the election ended with "nearly all the major candidates calling for the results to be tossed out amid 'massive fraud'": ....

Yesterday's election in Haiti had the fingerprints of the US government all over it. ...

Last week, Bolivian President Evo Morales called out (linked) the US for its recent history of supporting coups in the region.


These facts about US government "involvement" in the coup in Venezuela are documented in Oliver Stone's recent movie, South of the Border. This is why it's so important for as many Americans as possible to see this movie: because there are basic facts about the relationship of actual US government policies - as opposed to rhetoric - to democracy in Latin America that major US media simply cannot be counted upon to report straight. In order to successfully agitate for meaningful reform of US government policy in Latin America, Americans have to know what the actual policy of the US government has been.

And this is why Just Foreign Policy is urging Americans to organize house parties on December 10 - Human Rights Day - to watch South of the Border. You can sign up to host a screening here. (linked)

(snip - the two video clips)

Now the above is a very interesting and excellent article, and it looks like the NYT included at least one important diplomatic cable in the tiny set of leaked cables the Times has opted to restrict itself to publishing. Even if the NYT chiefs chose very badly in restricting the Times to publishing only 100 out of over 250,000 of the diplomatic cables, they're publishing at least one that's important or certainly can be put to very important use, as illustrated with the above article.

People would probably still learn from "South of the Border" if they had dedicated serious time to [educating] themselves by reading many good articles and viewing important videos for documentaries, such as John Pilger's "War on Democracy", and videos with Philip Agee, a former CIA agent who had worked in Latin America, covertly, and quit to become a "whistleblower" when he learned of what the US was doing there, extreme criminality; as well as reading very good articles like plenty that have been posted at, among some other Web sites. But "South of the Border" will, I am guessing, educate people who haven't done any serious amount of [qualitative] reading much more than it'll educate the rest of us. I would definitely want to view this film anyway and if I gained nothing for newly gained knowledge from viewing the film, then I'd certainly know much more about a film that I evidently would be recommending to other people.

It's similar with this cable regarding the US vis-a-vis Honduras, Hondurans, and the the coup that happened there, as well as many other cables in the dataset that Wikileaks has started to release. If people had dedicated a serious amount of time to reading from [qualitative] sources over the past several years, or more, for those people who've been reading for longer, then we'd all be able to see that there's not really any "bombshell" being released through Wikileaks. But, again, while there evidently aren't any "bombshells" from this, yet, the above article on the cable regarding the coup in Honduras and Washington's actions in this regard provide concrete evidence that I will guess could be used in a prosecution of the guilty people in Washington.

We have real proof, facts. The cable about the coup in Honduras and what the above article on this says can not be written off as only speculation or "conspiracy theory".

"Wikileaks: US nuclear weapon sites in Europe revealed"

Channel 4 News, Nov. 30th, 2010

More leaked cables from Wikileaks appear to confirm, for the first time, where the US has deployed its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

The WikiLeaks cables suggest that most of the roughly 200 bombs still left in Europe are based in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Turkey.

While the international community is aware that the US has warheads remaining in Europe, the locations of the bombs have never been revealed - until now.

The cable, sent from Berlin to the US Secretary of State in November last year, details a conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon and German foreign policy advisor Christoph Heusgen.

The cable says: "Heusgen said that from his perspective, it made no sense to unilaterally withdraw 'the 20' tactical nuclear weapons still in Germany while Russia maintains 'thousands' of them."

The German government, particularly foreign minister Guido Westerwelle, has pledged to remove all remaining nuclear weapons from Germany. (linked)

Potential consequences

The cable adds that Mr Gordon "noted that it was important to think through all the potential consequences" of withdrawing the weapons from Germany - "for example, a withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Germany and perhaps from Belgium and the Netherlands could make it very difficult politically for Turkey to maintain its own stockpile, even though it was still convinced of the need to do so."

Nato condemned the publication of the locations of the weapons as "illegal and dangerous", according to The Times. (linked)

The weapons remain in strategic locations across Europe, placed there after the Second World War to demonstrate the US commitment to NATO during the Cold War.

Ministers across Europe have recently called for their removal, saying they are obsolete, particularly in light of Russia joining Nato's missile shield, (linked) the closest co-operation between Nato and Russia since before the Cold War.

As if Russia would attack western Europe if there were no nuclear weapons in western Europe! It's ludicrous to even consider thinking that Russia would do that and it takes extremely brainwashed people to believe that Russia would.

"Will Wikileaks kill the Official Secrets Act?

It will still be used to control individuals, but these leaks expose the Act's weaknesses"

by Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian, UK, Nov. 29th, 2010

That article begins with a picture and the caption for it reads, "The British government failed to prevent publication of Spycatcher, by former MI5 officer Peter Wright, using the Official Secrets Act. The US embassy cables released by Wikileaks is another nail in the coffin for the Act. ...".

It might be thought the deluge of classified US state department information placed on the worldwide web is yet another – possibly fatal – nail in the coffin of the Official Secrets Act (OSA), (linked) as well as that uniquely British institution the Defence Advisory Committee, (linked) which operates a system of voluntary self-censorship in cooperation with the media.


The OSA has been applied inconsistently: it has been used as a political weapon. No secrets prosecution can go ahead without the attorney general's say-so. ...

The OSA could be much more tightly drawn as an espionage act, to catch genuine spies whose activities are damaging. But governments seem to want to keep it as it is - as a convenient tool, a threat, something in the cupboard to warn off potential British whistleblowers.

The following FAS piece is not totally, but nevertheless is very critical of Wikileaks leaking the so-called diplomatic cables.

"The Race to Fix the Classification System"
by Steven Aftergood, Nov. 29th, 2010

I posted an excerpt from the above article in post #2 in the following page yesterday, the last article referred to in the post; if readers of this post prefer to see if the excerpt is enough for them, first, before reading the full article.

The following article by Arthur Silber is defense of the work of Wikileaks that some people might want to refer to when reading, considering or wanting to argue against arguments presented by people opposed to what Wikileaks is doing and that includes "leftists" criticizing Wikileaks.

"On WikiLeaks: You Force Me to Repeat Myself"
by Arthur Silber Once Upon a Time...,, Nov. 29th, 2010

The original article is linked where it says "Once Upon a Time..." preceding the date.

I interrupt my work on a new article about WikiLeaks to address this, (linked) and especially the concluding paragraph (see links in the original):

"Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is an even worse enemy. Anyway, with all respect to Arthur on this*, count me instead with Anglachel as describing this as a giant ... (snipped vulgarity) operation, designed to promote more war. If someone can find any evidence whatsoever that this actually damages the expansion of American imperialism, rather than enhances it, please wake me.



But I remain very annoyed -- because I've already addressed this exact argument in detail. It made up a significant part of my series of articles on WikiLeaks last summer.

Since people obviously don't follow links (and I increasingly doubt whether more than 10 or 20 people read any of my posts when they first appear), I'll repeat part of what I wrote in Part IV (linked) of that series:

"Many examples make up the lesson, and the trail of murder and suffering crosses the globe, .... The United States seeks global hegemony. To justify its quest, the United States invents a series of terrifying threats, all of which, in one way or another, are alleged to be "existential" threats to our very survival. With almost no exceptions at all, the leaders of the American Empire concoct these threats out of nothing.



In comparative terms (and even in absolute terms), Wikileaks has no capabilities or powers at all -- except for one. And that is the ability to make information available to everyone, information which the otherwise all-powerful leaders of Empire seek to keep secret from those they rule, and from those they seek to subjugate in the future. In this context, and especially when we keep in mind the gaping abyss between the powers of Empire and the single power of Wikileaks, to blame Wikileaks (or anyone similarly situated) for the improper use of the material they release is to blame Wikileaks for someone else's irrationality and immense destructiveness. It is to blame Wikileaks for actions over which Wikileaks has no control whatsoever.


... Forte (and others) want authority to serve a purpose that is very different from that of the Empire -- but they still want an authority to make their desired outcome more likely.

But the very purpose of Wikileaks is to challenge any and every authority of this kind. For Wikileaks, the only authority that matters -- the only person who is ultimately entitled to all available information and who properly should judge it -- is you. In this sense, which I submit is the highest and best sense of the term, Wikileaks is a genuine "leveller." ..."

I developed these points still more in a subsequent essay. (linked)


As I've been writing this entry, I was struck by one critical issue still another time. The return of this argument -- and, of singular importance, the implied continuing reliance on authority (and again, see this for further discussion on that point) -- demonstrates to me again the extent to which virtually all of us are trained to rely on authority and to obey. The hardest battle most of us will ever fight is to escape the effects of this training.


Despite the poster's kind comments about me personally, I will state the conclusion plainly: this completely misses what is most fundamental about WikiLeaks and why its work challenges established authority so profoundly. This particular Corrente poster may want authority to prevent rather than enable further war -- but he still wants some authority to guarantee the result he prefers.

But the WikiLeaks revolution goes far beyond that, and much deeper. The precision of its aim is revealed by the great discomfort experienced even by many of those one might have expected to be sympathetic to WikiLeaks' efforts. ...


I'm not discomforted at all by the Wikileaks releases, but, and so far, there hasn't been an "bombshell" leakage through Wikileaks, which has leaked what serious readers about the present wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and more, would've mostly known for years, already. What is discomforting is the fact that [many] people have not dedicated serious time to such readings.

I got the following DN! interview video based on a copy at Uruknet.

"Video: "We Have Not Seen Anything Yet": Guardian Editor Says Most Startling WikiLeaks Cables Still To Be Released

Nov. 30th, 2010

"In the coming days, we are going to see some quite startling disclosures about Russia, the nature of the Russian state, and about bribery and corruption in other countries, particularly in Central Asia," says Investigations Executive Editor David Leigh at the Guardian, one of the three newspapers given advanced access to the secret U.S. embassy cables by the whistleblower website, WikiLeaks. "We will see a wrath of disclosures about pretty terrible things going on around the world." Leigh reviews the major WikiLeaks revelations so far, explains how the 250,000 files were downloaded and given to the newspaper on a thumb drive, and confirms the Guardian gave the files to the New York Times. Additional cables will be disclosed throughout the week.

And I got the links for the following two DN! interviews, below, from "related links" in the above DN! page. None of the other related links in the above page are related to the new release being made by Wikileaks.

"Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership""

Nov. 30th, 2010

In a national broadcast exclusive interview, we speak with world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky about the release of more than 250,000 secret U.S. State Department cables by WikiLeaks. In 1971, Chomsky helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg release the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret internal U.S. account of the Vietnam War. Commenting on the revelations that several Arab leaders are urging the United States to attack Iran, Chomsky says, "latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent," Chomsky says. "This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership."

This is the first time that I've read or heard of Noam Chomsky having helped Daniel Ellsberg to release the Pentagon Papers and this is an interesting bit of history.

Re. the polls Chomsky is citied about in the above excerpt, I believe he's surely speaking of the populations and not the political "leaderships". The populations are certainly not for supporting any war or military strikes on Iran.

"U.S. Facing Global Diplomatic Crisis Following Massive WikiLeaks Release of Secret Diplomatic Cables"

Nov. 29th, 2010

begun releasing a giant trove of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables that is sending shockwaves through the global diplomatic establishment. Among the findings: Arab leaders are urging the United States to attack Iran; Washington and Yemen agreed to cover up the use of U.S. warplanes to bomb Yemen; the United States is using its embassies around the world as part of a global spy network and asking diplomats to gather intelligence; and much more. We host a roundtable discussion with Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg; Greg Mitchell, who writes the Media Fix blog at The Nation; Carne Ross, a British diplomat for 15 years who resigned before the Iraq war; and As’ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. [includes rush transcript]


Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower.

Carne Ross, a British diplomat for 15 years who resigned before the Iraq war. He is the founder and head of a non-profit diplomatic advisory group, Independent Diplomat (

Greg Mitchell, writes the Media Fix blog for The Nation. He was the longtime editor of Editor & Publisher magazine and is the author of 10 books including The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair’s Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics.

As'ad Abu Khalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley. He’s the author of "The Battle for Saudi Arabia" and runs the Angry Arab News Service blog.

Some articles by and referring to Carne Ross:

I had not heard of, before, so just checked the home page and there are several articles linked there related to this new and huge release by Wikileaks. The following is one of four presently linked in the home page and this one says that Carne Ross was a diplomat, British, at the UN. And I'll disable automatic hyperlinking by removing the "www." prefix in case there'd be too many of these links. There used to be a limit for hyperlinks in a post at

"Guardian - US Embassy Cables: UN Seeks Answers From Washington"

by Robert Booth and Ewen MacAskill, Guardian, UK, Nov. 30th, 2010

"Washington Post - Leaks Undercut Relations With U.S., Nations Say"

by Edward Cody, Washington Post, Nov. 30th, 2010

Diplomats and government officials around the world lamented Monday the massive leak of U.S. diplomatic cables, and many predicted it would undercut their ability to deal with the United States on sensitive issues.

The State Department cables, dumped into the public domain by the WikiLeaks organization, embarrassed the Obama administration in foreign capitals and raised the possibility that the United States will have a much tougher time collecting critical information, even from allies.

Carne Ross, a former British diplomat, said it is hardly news that countries spy on one another. "More harmful is the reality that U.S. cables can be publicized in this devastating manner," he said. "Diplomats may think twice before sharing confidences with U.S. diplomats - at least until WikiLeaks is forgotten."

Read the full article. (linked, of course)

"Daily Mirror - We Need More Transparency, Says Ex-British Diplomat to UN"

by Carne Ross, Daily Mirror,, Nov. 30th, 2010

Make no mistake, the WikiLeaks disclosure of thousands of US diplomatic cables is an event of historic importance.

Diplomacy will certainly never be the same again. It's early days - tens of thousands of cables are yet to appear - but some consequences, and they are dramatic, are already clear.

Read the full Op-Ed article.

"Wikileaks Could Have Freezing Effect on Diplomacy"

by Barney Porter, ABC News 24 Australia,, Nov. 29th, 2010

Mr Ross resigned over disagreements with the Blair government over the Iraq war and he says diplomacy is now set to change.

"I think we will be able to date diplomacy to before WikiLeaks and after because this extraordinarily large dumping of documents sends a very clear message around the diplomatic system and that is that you cannot be sure that what you say and what you record in diplomatic cables won't reach the public sphere," he said.

"It will mean that diplomats stop recording the really sensitive stuff, that documents are circulated much less widely with clear operational effects for the diplomatic services around the world."

Read the full article and listen to the radio interview.

Carne Ross: Video interview for a profile of him:

The home page of Independent Diplomat also has a link for an AlJazeera video for a profile of Carne Ross and the link is for part 2 of 2, rather than part 1. I checked the text with boths parts at Youtube and they're the same, but will only provide the link for part 2. Part 1 must be entirely about the riot(s) in Denmark, for part 2 is entirely for the profile of Carne Ross and begins as it should in terms of introductory words; not as if it continues from part 1.

It's a good video, interviewing him, and it's interesting, certainly worth listening to. He was a British diplomat at the UN, but says he worked for Britain in the UNSC, Security Council, and he eventually realized that there was a lot wrong with what was going on. That applies with respect to the sanction years against Iraq and then the present war on Afghanistan, where he worked while doing this as a British diplomat at the UN. His years as a diplomat also involve Africa.

People who care will appreciate this video.

"People & Power- Something Rotten?- 23 Jan 08- Part 2" (11:08)

AlJazeeraEnglish, Jan. 23rd, 2008

People & Power report on the riots that erupted in Denmark after a youth house was demolished; A profile of former British diplomat Carne Ross, who resigned in protest to the Iraq war.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from




Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.