Re: <nettime> Nick Davies: The story behind the Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs (Guardian)

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

I have a hair up my ass about Wikileaks, got it?

The Guardian account is not quite true, perhaps a lot not true.

1. The Aghan files are digital not paper and they have not been
authenticated. Wikileaks customarily provides digitally-hash
authentications for its publications, this has not been done in
this release.

2. No raw files have been published, all versions have been artfully
packaged by their hosts, including Wikileaks, to fit the various
purposes of the hosts.

3. The NY Times has published none of the file versions Wikileaks
has published, instead has written substitute narratives for each file
used. You want more, it suggests, see Wikileaks not us, we know
better, so our lawyers order.

4. Every MSM host has published disclaimers about the authenticity
of the materials further into the story despite the attention getting
headlines, leads and commentaries. So the lawyers order, CYA,
beware Wikileaks who has not assests, no known address, no
known existence beyong a flakey website and spokesphantom.

5. Claims have been exaggerated by every host. Nobody has read
all the files, instead cited either 90 some thousand or more accurately
some 75 thousand. Then proceeded to bombast about the files,
cherry-picking a few (the Guardian picked 300 or so, an insignificant
.33 per cent of them).

6. The deal cut with spooky Wikileaks to distribute the material among
three more or less reputable outlets has not been reported in sufficient
detail to know what actually took place: how samples were provided,
who vetted the samples, what legal arrangements were made to
protect the MSM from liability against ghosts, who were the negotiators,
was the deal verbal or written, was there money involved, and if so,
how much and for whom, including fees for legal, travel, infrastructure,
odds and ends expenses, the usual way bribes are concealed and
tracked by the vast anti-money laundering apparatus.

7. The NY Times has admitted it briefed the White House on the
material, and who else is unknown. Nor is it known whether the
other MSM checked with their authorities. Nor whether Wikileaks
was told of these disclosures, agreed to them, or protested.
It would be surprising if the Guardian, subject to the Official
Secrets Act, did not do what it usually does, agree to censorship
and keep it quiet or camouflage by exaggerated declarations
of courage and daring.

8. Wikileaks getting in bed with the MSM has not been admitted
heretofore, although this may mean it has been going on
covertly -- as an outgrowth of WL's attempt to auction its
material to highest bidders, supposedly a failure, but perhaps
more successful than revealed. Assange is a master at hiding
his assets and providing hynotic illusions.

9. Nor does this instance address the likelihood that is reveals
an ongoing practice of Wikileaks to engage in contraband
material covertly with bidders of less than honorable MSM
stripes. Commong practice of authoritative information peddlers
is to enrich covertly under cover of noble public service, to wit,
spies, govs, banks, edus, ngos, religions, benefactors.

10. Nor has this instance revealed credible information about
cloaked Wikileaks operation, staff and "supporters" the number
of which, vary considerably, as does the amount of funds
raised.

11. Why willing suspension of disbelief has been so powerfully
successful in this instance is difficult to understand due to
the lack of information provided. The Guardian account published
here is ludicrously misleading, slathered with overly dramatic
claims, and lacking in verfifiable evidence. To be sure that
is a hallmark of "bombshell" disclosures of which Wikileaks
has demonstrated mastery, having learned from its eager
tutors facing desperate need for fund-rasing allurements
all alike.

12. Finally, and not at all least, Wikileaks protection of its
sources verges on criminal deception. Its website is leaky
beyond belief, as though it is meant to fool no security
export only the gullible. Wink, wink. Collateral damage
of its sources is accepted as a consequence of the
generals' ambitions. There is no assured security of
digital transactions of any sort, encrypted or plain,
and Assange knows this and knows the authorities
know this. Packet tracing and other methodologies
can track down any digital source -- Internet router
manufacturers openly advertise this capability and there
are hundreds of firms doing just that for spies, govs,
coms and edu researchers.

13. The ease with which Ellsberg has been induced to
front this operation, and now his banner waver, the NYT.
is remarkable. As if senility and remembrance of
glory days have come into play. Assange is a master
of that kind of flattery done best out of sight. Bill Keller's
apologia for publishing the story is almost tearjerkingly
like what other MSM are pumping frantically to keep the
lights from going out.



At 09:20 AM 7/26/2010, you wrote:

>original to:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-war-logs-back-story
>
>Afghanistan war logs: Story behind biggest leak in intelligence history







#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org