It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Felt like a conspiracy so here you go: Wikileaks

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
www.cia.gov...

Second to last bullet point:

If you have information which you believe might be of interest to the CIA in pursuit of the CIA's foreign intelligence mission, you may use our e-mail form. We will carefully protect all information you provide, including your identity. The CIA, as a foreign intelligence agency, does not engage in US domestic law enforcement.


See the implied "we will not cooperate with law enforcement" in their message?


WikiLeaks accepts classified, censored or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic or ethical significance.
WikiLeaks does not accept rumour, opinion or other kinds of first hand reporting or material that is already publicly available.

If your submission matches this criteria we will publish and keep published the document you submitted. The information you submit will be technically anonymized and we do not retain any information on you. We will never cooperate with anyone seeking to identify you.


See it in theirs? These are the same messages intended for different audiences.

They have a website for law abiding people to provide them with information and they have a website for people who steal their information from them to identify themselves.

Saying:
"WikiLeaks accepts classified, censored or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic or ethical significance."
and
"If you have information which you believe might be of interest to the CIA in pursuit of the CIA's foreign intelligence mission, you may use our e-mail form."

Is saying an identical thing. Information of "political, diplomatic, or ethical significance" is the same as "of inerest to the CIA in pursuit of the CIA's foreign intelligence mission"

They issue controlled releases, but of what? Really, what did releasing the video they just released accomplish? "War is horrible!"

So what? That video was not nearly as damaging as Abu Garabi. They claim they are stalked by CIA agents.

Let me ask you this, if you were the head of the CIA and you thought it was pretty likely that people within your organization were leaking to wikileaks, wouldn't you compartmentalize any strategies against wikileaks? If only four people know about the plan, and other people are kept in the dark but given specific orders with minimal info, then any significant leak (the whole entire plan was 'leaked', magically) would be minimal and any major leak would be recognizable as the fault of only a very small number of individuals (eg no one would #in leak it).

On top of that, wikileaks is constantly trying to get lots and lots of money, they are constantly being 'tailed' by james bond but if you just help them raise several hundred thousand dollars then they'll be able to give out this information!

Wikileaks screams intelligence community, either domestic or foreign, to me. It might not be united states intelligence agency though.

No matter how you look at it wikileaks collects intelligence and then controls the release of that intelligence. "We're releasing the video on March 5th."

Wikileaks = Honeypot or deep reconnaissance or both.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by sremmos]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by sremmos]




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
yep.

cryptome.org already spilled the beans. wikileaks is allegedly a cia front, although this reeks of mossad if you ask me.

the debut theatrics along with the james bond style following and "decrypting" nonsense were all red flags to me.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
haha, I figured I wasn't the first to make this claim.

Sometimes I just get egocentric and think that if I thought I realized something maybe it's big news, maybe I'm the first!

lol

Well at least I am not alone in my beliefs, next time I promise to use the search feature. And while I didn't know cryptome made this allegation, part of the reason I thought of this was because of the way they try to get so much money and cryptome seems to require so much less money to operate, so I was like "what do I know that always asks for a lot more money than it actually needs?" oh ya, the government!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sremmos
 


Off-Topic:

You never need to hesitate to express your thoughts around here. Even if someone did make a thread about the topic, it may not necessarily be categorized in a way that you could find it, or your views may reignite interest in the topic where the original thread did not.

It isn't an ego thing.

These are forums. Communicating is what we do.

/Off-Topic

I have to say I have always shared some reservations about the potential of Wikileaks being naively categorized in the light of "heroic disclosure."

Most of us here know, that all information - regardless of source - must be scrutinized in light of many externalities.

It's along the lines of "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Thanks for the heads up, makes me feel a lot more comfortable posting here, I'm new so I've been on edge about making my own topics (but still have anyway as you can see
).

You bring up a more rational side to my thoughts. Wikileaks is a suspicious entity because it catapulted to fame very quickly and effectively as a premier 'leak' site, because of it's attempt at being 'mainstream' disclosure media, it's avid reviews from other journalism sources, and etc.

It could be legitimate, or it could be a fraud. I can't find out because I don't have any material they'd be interested to see if the men in black come after me or not.

I've given my reasons for why I think it's likely a fraud, I'd be curious as to what reasons give to see it as legitimate.

Also, I wonder if Wikileaks could be used/has been used as a political weapon of the state.

That is to say, you are bank hersctenfire, your bank implements a policy that goes against the grain. While your bank, as well as every other major bank, has been having secret dealings and such that would make you look back, "wikileaks" gets 'informed' specifically of YOUR wrong-doing, but not of the banks that are still friends with the state. # like that.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
It is interesting, but are these statements the only thing you are basing this theory on? Because they can have perfectly innocent and straightforward meanings. I'd like to hear about anything else implying this.

The CIA one says 'we do not engage in US law enforcement'. That does not mean they don't cooperate (though they don't); it simply means they so not engage in US law enforcement. They aren't the police - as they state, they are all about foreign intelligence. It does seem to imply that they don't care if your evidence or whatever is gained through illegal means; but that is just as much an assumption as you are making.

It does make sense that they'd set up a website where people stealing from them would give their information right back to them along with their name and address (not literally of course). But it also makes sense that there are people out there who want to government's corruption to be made pubic, and so set up a site with that in mind.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by ShadowArcher]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I have no hard evidence and I shouldn't have made this so accusatory, but I really do believe its true.


It does make sense that they'd set up a website where people stealing from them would give their information right back to them along with their name and address (not literally of course).


It also makes sense that they would try to get a lot of money through their efforts in 'heroic' journalism. It also lets them figure out if they do have any leaks in their own community and what departments/sections those leaks are originating from, even if the guy giving info doesn't identify himself, from the info given and the source material used to give it they can figure out pretty easily how that info was compartmentalized who had access to the 'big picture' if the 'big picture' was leaked rather than compartments of it.

To me wikileaks is just very suspicious, but like you said it could be legit.

When Cryptome accused Wikileaks of being CIA did they provide any evidence or claim any sources for their view?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Who ?

Wikileaks, a gov front, far from it, more like a business trying to earn seven figure digits. But as i have posted before within other threads. There is absolutely nothing anonymous when the internet is concerned. Once you begin to understand that, then your 1/4 of the way in protecting yourself.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Well i would not be supprised if they CIA was involved somehow with wikileaks but how do they check to see if documents are legit? Im pretty good at forging things and i have an mechanical typewritter from the 40s and an electric one from the 80's, a scanner, obviously a computer and all types of things that can age paper or make it look old enough to pass off in a photo. I could even get the carbon dating to check out if i wanted. So if i made a couple new MJ Docs, a roswell memo or even a present day document and put it on wiki leaks how could anyone ever tell if it was real or not? Some member here might be able to point out some problems with my documents but many people would eat it up.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join