posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 11:45 AM
I'm necro'ing an old thread of mine from a year and a half ago now that people on ATS have actually heard of Wikileaks, as this is now a germane
topic in light of current events. I'm hoping now there are members of ATS who have a strong opinion, or insight.
While there is little doubt that Wikileaks has been valuable as a Clearing House for leaked documents, recent events have some wondering if Assange is
actually working for the other side. However, he has also shown himself to be a major thorn in the side to the DoD. However, it does raise a certain
amount of doubt as to the value of Wikileaks.
However, as I stated in the OP, there are instances where leaked documents were questionable at best, as they appear written by someone with a
questionable grasp of reality and an even more questionable grasp of military documents (not to mention a questionable grasp of grammar). When
one does not review, limit, edit, restrict, or censor documents leaked, a Clearing House becomes as equally a tool for disinformation as it does for
That is also ignoring the fact that all Military Documents routinely contain both markers and disinformation already. Whether the documents are
hard-copy, digital, or electromagnetic, they contain markers as a form of authentication and as a way to determine the source if leaked to
unauthorized personnel (which is why Army Intelligence Analyst PFC Bradley Manning was caught so quickly after WikiLeaks went public with some of
the 260,000 Classified documents he leaked to WikiLeaks). Military Intelligence goes one step further with spurious entries to mislead
unauthorized personnel who may obtain access to the documents, to determine disruptions in the information chain, to validate the reliability of
downstream informants, and discover unauthorized plants. Some Military documents are entirely spurious but composed of authentic material, to cloud
the process, to entrap, to delude, to fake a vulnerability...basically smoke and mirrors that fellow Intel "magicians" can see through but obfuscate
the Truth and intent from those that aren't part of that Intel community.
As such, there is an old saying to never trust an Intelligence source as they are all unreliable.
Should TrustNo1 be used when regarding WikiLeaks, or should it just be treated as all other intelligence sources and be taken with a healthy grain of
So the question is: WikiLeaks useful source if one knows how to separate the proverbial wheat from the proverbial chaff, being able to discern info
from disinfo, or are they entirely a pawn of the DoD, unwitting or not?