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.

 

WikiLeaks gags staff, threatens leakers with $20 million penalty

page: 3
28
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Granite
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

Wikileaks doing standard practice "Corporate Ethics Training"? Isn't that an oximoron?
The corporate lawyers are loose again...


Yes my friend, it certainly doesn't get more ironic than this story.

Meet the new boss the same as the old boss.

Saving the world from common sense and integrity, it's a full time job.

Thanks for posting.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I see this more as a method to control the flow of leaked information and it's critically important to do so.. if your organization was in that position where sensitive data flowed in.. you required a staff to sift through and organize the documents, find good information, toss out perhaps useless information.. that's a lot of eyes on secret documents.. you wouldn't want all of your staff to just leak whatever they want.. that data was entrusted to wikileaks to present it to the world in a useful way not to have a staff member tell a pal and then have an uncontrolled stream of information going around.. a place like wikileaks requires trust and an air tight flow of information.. things need to be released with a plan and with purpose.. to me that memo just makes sense.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I've never heard the term pink underwear used so liberally and never in this context before, I'm not sure whether I should salute you or not.. I did laugh



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Assange is a cheap opportunist and a media whore. This just bears that out.

I was originally for WikiLeaks when I thought it was a place for Whistle-Blowers, but when it became apparent what it is and what Assange is, he lost my support.

He is a media darling now though, which is what he wanted. You can be sure he is now a puppet, even if he was not at first. Money now controls him and notoriety.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Assange is a cheap opportunist and a media whore. This just bears that out.

I was originally for WikiLeaks when I thought it was a place for Whistle-Blowers, but when it became apparent what it is and what Assange is, he lost my support.

He is a media darling now though, which is what he wanted. You can be sure he is now a puppet, even if he was not at first. Money now controls him and notoriety.


This is my fear too, and I have to say based on my own very recent experiences because of my stature on this site, there is not a snow balls chance in hades that Assange has not been compromised.

Thanks for posting my friend.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I've never heard the term pink underwear used so liberally and never in this context before, I'm not sure whether I should salute you or not.. I did laugh


I fear Assanges cautions are not what they appear to be. The pink underwear disclosures are in part meant to illustrate that.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

The reality is those revalations never come, just the pink underwear stories, and the stuff the press simply didn't make a big deal about.

Meanwhile people donate lots of money, and who knows what Assange is really doing with the explosive stuff.

We know what he isn't doing, and that's releasing it for us to see.



Good to see many are starting to believe what I've believed for some time now. He is using what he does have for clear financial reasons. Release a tidbit, collect the donations, do it again, collect more donations.........

He takes no risk, puts his sources at risk and pockets the rewards. He will never be prosecuted for doing what he is doing. Only his sources will be nailed to the cross. He clearly knows that and now he can be used as a political tool, even if he is not in on it, which I'm sure he is.

He does shower and dress in clean clothes now though.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Posting slow today while trying to work.

I think his original fan base is slow to come around to what is going on because at first it seemed like such a good thing and it could have been. Some just jump on board with anything that opposes authority in any way.

It's a shame WikiLeaks was not what it should have been. It was a great idea. It could have done a lot of good. It's still a good idea, but WikiLeaks will never be trustworthy again.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I am not going to just tell you and the people of the world what happens to independent people who challenge the status quo and try to shake it to the foundations, I am going to show the world too!

You end up dissapearing never to be heard from again.

I sure am going to miss all you fine folks.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Hi Proto! You raise some excellent points about WikiLeaks that I have been pondering myself. I recently read an incredible book by a French theorist by the name of Jacques Ellul, titled Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. Ellul in this book describes propaganda as an inevitable by-product of the way that our current, modern society - dubbed by him "the Technological Society." It is an all-pervasive force, inescapable, and one that is rarely understood. Propaganda's main intent is to generate action by creating a certain feeling, yet this relies on the implementation of "pre-propaganda." Furthermore, both pre-propaganda and propaganda itself need to, at some level, utilize facts that can be presented at either utmost accuracy or spun to give it a certain appearance. I can't help but apply this to WikiLeaks.

Is WikiLeaks the fact-based pre-propaganda, generating a certain zeitgeist, in preparation for propaganda itself to be utilized? For Ellul, the spinners of pre-propaganda is the major media, so given that the major media is the tool that disseminates WikiLeaks information into society at large, I can't help but suspect this is the case indeed.

I also came across an interesting article by the folks over at the Centre for Research on Globalization called "Who's Who at WikiLeaks" that raises some equally, and possibly interrelated, questions about the individuals on the board of advisers for WikiLeaks I'll post some quotes:

[Note: the National Endowment for Democracy is a State Department-funded vehicle for "democracy promotion" - i.e., getting countries in line with the Washington Consensus. It does this by funneling US money into the hands of grassroots organizations around the globe, and frequently works hand in hand with George Soros' Open Society Institute. Read about it. Its scary.]


Philip Adams, among other things, “held key posts in Australian governmental media administration” (Wikileaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008), chaired the Australia Council and contributed to The Times, The Financial Times in London and The New York Times. Confirmed by several reports, he is the representative of the International Committee of Index on Censorship. It is worth mentioning that Wikileaks was awarded the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award. (Philip Adams, Milesago.com)

Adams worked as a presenter for ABC (Australia) Radio's Late Night Live and as columnist for The Australian since the 1960s. The Australian is owned by News Corporation, a property of Rupert Murdoch, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).



Ben Laurie:

...

Despite his denial of being an advisor to Wikileaks, his name still appears on the list of advisory board members, according to reports. It is also worth noting that Ben Laurie is a “Director of Security for The Bunker Secure Hosting, where he has worked since 1984 and is responsible for security, cryptography and network design.” He is also a Director of Open Rights Group, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd and the Open Society Foundation.



Xiao Qiang:

...and is currently vice-chair of the Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy”...

Xiao Qiang is also the "founder and publisher of China Digital Times" (Biographies, National Endowment for Democracy), which is a grantee of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (Directives from China's Ministry of Truth on Liu Xiaobo winning Nobel, Democracy Digest, October 8, 2010).

The Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy is an initiative of the Washington, DC-based NED. (World Movement for Democracy). In 2008, Xiao Qiang was part of a discussion panel intitled "Law Rights and Democracy in China: Perspectives and Leading Advocates", held by NED before the Democracy Award Ceremony. (2008 NED Democracy Award Honors Heroes of Human Rights and Democracy in China, National Endowment for Democracy, June 17, 2008).



Wang Dan:

He is chairman of the Chinese Constitutional Reform Association, and sits on the editorial board of Beijing Spring, a magazine funded by NED, the “chief democracy-promoting foundation” according to an article by Judith Miller in The New York Times. One of the founders of NED was quoted as saying “A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” (quoted in William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180).

In 1998, Wang Dan was granted the NED's Democracy Award "for representing a peaceful alternative to achieve democracy and for [his] courage and steadfastness in the cause of democracy". (1998 Democracy Award honors Heroes of Human Rights and Democracy in China, National Endowment for Democracy)


A lot of ties there to the National Endowment for Democracy. The authors of the article raise a few more valid points:


Assange encourages blind faith in Wikileaks as he puts a lot of emphasis on the trustworthiness of his opaque organization. In the words of Assange:

“Once something starts going around and being considered trustworthy in a particular arena, and you meet someone and they say ‘I heard this is trustworthy,’ then all of a sudden it reconfirms your suspicion that the thing is trustworthy. So that’s why brand is so important, just as it is with anything you have to trust.”(Andy Greenberg, An Interview with Wikileaks' Julian Assange, Forbes, 29 October, 2010, emphasis added)

"People should understand that WikiLeaks has proven to be arguably the most trustworthy new source that exists, because we publish primary source material and analysis based on that primary source material," Assange told CNN. "Other organizations, with some exceptions, simply are not trustworthy."(The secret life of Julian Assange, CNN, 2 December 2010, emphasis added)

While Wikileaks no longer discloses the names of the members of its advisory board, nor does it reveal its sources of funding, we have to trust it because according to its founder Julian Assange, it “has proven to be the most trustworthy news source that exists”.

Moreover, if we follow Assange’s assertion that there are only a few media organizations which can be considered trustworthy, we must assume that those are the ones which were selected by Wikileaks to act as "partners" in the release and editing of the leaks, including The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, El Paìs, Le Monde.

Yet The New York Times, which employs members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) including Wikileaks’ collaborator David E. Sanger, has proven more than once to be a propaganda tool for the US government, the most infamous example being the Iraqi WMD narrative promoted by Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller.



Over the last seven months, the London based Frontline Club has served as de facto U.K "headquarters" for Wikileaks. The Frontline Club is an initiative of Henry Vaughan Lockhart Smith, a former British Grenadier Guards captain. According to NATO, Vaughan Smith became an "independant video journalist [...] who always hated war, but remained [...] soldier-friendly". (Across the Wire, New media: Weapons of mass communication, NATO Review, February 2008)

Upon his release from bail, Julian Assange was provided refuge at Vaughan Smith's Ellingham Manor in Norfolk.

The Frontline Club is an establishment media outfit. Vaughan Smith writes for the NATO Review. (See NATO Web TV Channel and NATO Nations: Accurate, Reliable and Convenient). His relationship to NATO goes back to 1998 when he worked as a video journalist in Kosovo. In 2010, he was "embedded with a platoon from the British Grenadier Guards" during Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. (PBS NewsHour, February 19, 2010). According to the New York Times, The Frontline Club "has received financing for its events from the Open Society Institute". (In London, a Haven and a Forum for War Reporters - New York Times, 28 August 2006)


Food for thought, no?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Good to see many are starting to believe what I've believed for some time now. He is using what he does have for clear financial reasons. Release a tidbit, collect the donations, do it again, collect more donations.........


Appears you haven't followed WL at all. WL isn't releasing tidbits. They are on a continous release and have been for a long time.
As for the trustworthyness of WL I have yet to see a single reason not to trust them. Where do you even get that?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


If you had to pick one, and just one, what would you consider to be the most relevant disclosure Wiki has made to date?

Interested in hearing your opinion on that.

Thanks.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Good question. I'm naturally biased for the leaks that are relevant to my country. Especially interesting one was about one party in Finland who behind closed doors promised US that they'd bring us to Nato if they get elected within the next year. Also interesting is that they actually did win the election. Other than that I was most interested in Gitmo leaks. Gitmo operation manual was leaked awhile ago and now the new leak detailing who is held there. That was truly shocking and I'm kind of sad that it didn't cause a global s#%tstorm. That has been the most disappointing aspect of all of this. Reactions have been almost non-excistent. Misinformation and such have been huge after the leaks started and seems that they've worked.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Oh the Irony.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
This was actually a duplicate thread. Maxmars also started one on the same topic, and more of the technical reasons Assange may have implemented an NDA are discussed there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For instance, Assange has never concealed the fact tthat how Wikileaks is designed is so that it can use the mechanisms set up by corporations and other power brokers to protect and enable their own operations, to protect Wikileaks FROM them.

There are legal reasons Wikileaks would do this to protect itself that have nothing whatsoever to do with profit. Declaring something your property opens up lots of legal doors to you in terms of defending the "property" that corporations and other wealthy people have been putting in place to protect their property for centuries.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join