Say, for sake of the argument, Assange IS, or rather WAS
a CIA-paid spook. Getting off lightly for a misstep in his inquisitive years.
Imagine this scenario: He and the whole cabal around him, aided by the CIA's Psy-Ops, set up the whole system purely meant for dis-info, nothing else,
and runs along with it -why not- working for the Gov' is a nice mortgage-helper.
Buuut...he sees "real" stuff that wasn't meant to be seen by him -say, the slaughtering of innocents by Apache gunship- (It happens, I work for
government and have seen my share of "non-disclosable" and iffy stuff specifically NOT meant to be seen by my department, but tend to adhere to my
oath ,so just return it and forget about it..) and starts doubting..
next thing: He goes rogue and uses the tools provided to pull the lid of things that are most certainly NOT aiding in the whole psy-ops' plans. Plans
that are mainly centered at keeping all (oil) wars going, because, especially in an economic crisis ,we need the revenue from the military industrial
complex -It's the bloody only TRUE industry we have left, employing millions..
Spooks of the three-letter agencies (including MI6 on the other side of the Anglo-American construct) do not know how much data Assange ACTUALLY has,
but do not want to run the risk of being burned. They know that an "accident" at this point in time is too obvious, having the botched "suicide" to
the back of the head of that Iraq-inspector in Great-Britain as an example how NOT to get rid of dissenting voices, they're once-bitten-twice-shy.
They abide their time to see what happens.
Yet, suddenly all hell breaks loose. A couple of big newspapers start giving Assange credit, and openly publishing the first (not very revealing or
dangerous) documents. Shady types, knowing the wobbly way they "fixed" all sorts of national and international debaucles, and the paper-trail that
government agencies amass during operations, panic and construct the rather transparent ruse of "sudden sex' knowing damn well they got nothing on
Assange, and betting on the strictness of Swedish law is in such cases, try silencing him by making him a suspect ,and thusly no longer to be trusted
by the media and the populace. De-faming with the help of pretty ladies(read: state-funded luxury prostitutes) was a favourite past-time of the KGB as
well as the CIA...
It's an absolutele classic in counter espionage and framing. Most men in power have this hightened sex-drive and can be lured in quite easily with
some willing booty.(just think of the powerful men who fell-down hard due to sex-scandals)
Maybe, maybe not.
Now for MY take on it all:
Having stated all above, I honestly do NOT believe the whole Wikileaks is about governmental internet-control. It is not why the CIA set up their
wiki-like info databases. Internet control was ALREADY in the pipeline with the biased reporting on "software piracy" and subsequent -willing-
clamping down on user's rights. Look at Europe, and France in specific (Yes, they still have that authoritorian streak that made Napoleon big, they
got Sarkozy now..just as short, and just as power hungry and fond of registration and control as Le Bonaparte) for where we are heading.
State-secrets, in the end, do not truly
interest the general populace, but software getting incredibly expensive and riddled with ever stricter
DRM, does. It hits the populace in the wallet..Soooo that's a much more effective scape-goat to clamp-down on internet. When Assange was not an
issue, France ALREADY pushed in law the "three-strikes-out" for illegal downloads, and tries to force that down the throats of other European nations,
Great Britain soon followed suit. What more effective control than NO access to the web? You can save on control- and censoring.. just 3x illegal
downloads on your IP and Whammo! gone. No more interwebs, no more internationally available "free-speech".
So, forgive me for declaring Wikileaks as a carefully planned&executed "ploy to censor&control the web", pure hogwash. True control will come through
corporations exerting pressure on governments by means of lobbying and pouring endless streams of money in the pockets of those at the wheel.
Accept it: We live in a Plutocracy. Turnover, and revenue is much more important than a few leaked e-mails and some shady banking deals... It is
business that will, finally, clamp down on the "free web", in cahoots with their shills in congress, Downingstreet and the Europarliament.
No James-bondish spy vs. spy needed. The net-result is exactly the same, without the dangers of a high-profile case that stirs the pot on the
shadow-powers. If Assange was found a serious threat, they would have taken the risk of "neutralizing' him, they wouldn't have used the relative mild
"sex-offence' he is held on now. He.Would.Be.Dead.
Yes, CIA,NSA,FBI, MI6 and such ARE somewhat apprehensive, but only because on a personal level there could be management heads rolling. On the
grand-scale that secret services mostly think, this is peanuts. To boot, State/Corporate control over the Web is already in motion, no Assange
scapegoating needed...it's just a welcome coincidence to be milked. Not some pre-planned grand-scheme.
Again, look at France to be TRULY scared where we are heading. From "illegal downloads" to "spreading illegal ideas" is a tiiiny step...
So, NO, no CIA-plot here. They do not need to. They obviously thought about it, but..how many heads in the secret-service have rolled after Iraq's
WMD's were found to be a lie? well? Right, none! Thus:No need for big operations here. Corporations and a demotivated, disinterested and
generally laxe populace do all their work for them.
An eventual clamping-down on the Web is just a nice bonus that they'll get without ever being involved in it.
Just my $0.02
edit on 12/11/2010 by diakrite because: one slash too many