It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
7 August 2010
The principal deficiency of Wikileaks is its lack of transparency
about its operators and funds, characteristics of spies and secret
societies up to no good and whose main purpose is to hide
from public accountability and conceal corruption and criminality.
Such organizations always use a noble purpose and claim secrecy
is needed to protect supporters. In practice the secrecy protects
the principal beneficiaries, the operators and sources of funds, and
supporters are sacrificed to protect the continuation of the
Wikileaks has followed the lucrative model of the cult of national security,
the largest world's secret enterprise, composed of selected elements
of governments, military, intelligence, NGOs, contractors, lobbyists
and supporters, identified by their clearance for access to classified
Royalty and religion have long demonstrated the power of secrecy
in misrepresenting what they are up to, pronouncing a great public
benefit while reaping privileged rewards behind this cloak -- a lavish
cloak of property, ceremony, titles and prizes, architecture, clothing,
language and literature, music, fine arts, and not least, a complex
apparatus of punishment for apostates and infidels, often by
military means but equally often by covert attacks.
Cults of royalty, religion, military are the main practitioners of secrecy
and they are role models for ambitious persons who believe they
have a mission to be superior to the public and must violate public
trust to battle those who have similar ambitions. They invent
enemies to warrant this betrayal.
They also combine with their competitors to advance their causes.
Thus the appeal of global initiatives to violate national borders
in transgression of local law hidden by secrecy.
That's the short sermon. Far better is the browsible library of bountiful
supporting information undoctored by sermonizing, Cryptome.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
In a worst case scenario, Wikileaks is nothing more than a means to an end. In a best case scenario, i guess you could say the same.
Their intentions is what will decide the end that they are a means to. I really do not want to see the internet shut down. It pisses me off when i want to watch Black Hawk Down and can't because the Fed has shut down every site, or blocked it in my region.
Freedom my ass.
I've been following coverage of Wikileaks' release of the Afghan Diaries closely, and have admired your skepticism. I feel firmly we are on the same page. However, I would like to make an attempt to clear some possible disinformation that is floating about. While it's obvious that the "diaries" are a mix of propaganda and publicly available information, I do suspect the entire operation is funded from a controlling interest.
Thank you for taking the time to read this far, and allow me to voice my concern. Many are running with the claim that Wikileaks was funded by The Open Society Institute. (Soros connection). I, myself, suspected the same, after Declan's CNET interview with you...
"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."
However, judging by that article, it's just not clear to me, whether or not Open Society Institute, in fact, provided funding for Wikileaks.