The WikiLeaks Hoax, Part I
WikiLeaks has done it again. For the second time in less than four months, the shadowy outfit has succeeded in publishing a leak that has completely dominated the news cycle. Even news outlets and commentators that are critical of its posting of tens of thousands of U.S. military reports on the war in Afghanistan are prepared to confer upon WikiLeaks the honorific of a “whistleblower organization.”
But is that what it is? In April, WikiLeaks published its first mega-scoop of 2010: the so-called “Collateral Murder” video showing a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in which two Iraqi Reuters employees were killed in Baghdad. At the time, I pointed to glaring differences between WikiLeaks’s handling of the video and the modus operandi that had characterized the “old” WikiLeaks. (See my “The Strange Career of WikiLeaks” at weeklystandard.com.)
The original WikiLeaks website in fact went offline in December 2009, allegedly to make way for a funding drive. It was, as I put it, an “equal opportunity” publisher of classified materials of all sorts from a wide variety of sources. The site, as such, had no clear political orientation and it would indeed have been contrary to the nature of the project to have had any. Like its namesake Wikipedia, the “old” WikiLeaks was, in effect, merely a platform. It was not the team that maintained the platform that provided the site with its essential content, but rather the sources who uploaded material to it.
The “new” WikiLeaks, by contrast, had all the trappings of a propaganda vehicle. Or, more precisely, just a propaganda stunt. When WikiLeaks published the “Collateral Murder” video, the site might indeed have been more appropriately called “WikiLeak” in the singular. For it contained barely any other leaks and none of any consequence.
A site that proudly boasted about having published some 1.2 million leaked documents — namely, in its previous incarnation — had managed to post all of twelve in its new incarnation in 2010. Most of them were about Iceland. In the meanwhile, the “old” WikiLeaks archives have been restored to the new site, thus creating a greater semblance of continuity. But the remarkable penury of leaks has continued.
Now, WikiLeaks has managed to chalk up exactly one more leak, and the publication of the files that the site has dubbed “The Afghan War Diary” confirms that the vocation of the “new” WikiLeaks is not unfiltered information, but rather targeted propaganda: highly targeted, since — Iceland aside — the real focus of the new site is obviously just the USA.
In light of the evolution of the site in the last four months — or, more precisely, the striking lack thereof — there is reason to doubt that there even really is any WikiLeaks “organization” as such that stands behind it. It would appear rather that the WikiLeaks brand itself — complete with ubiquitous spokesperson Julian Assange and his distinctive shock of white hair — is part of the desired propaganda effect. After all, if the world’s most famous and courageous “whistleblower organization” only ever blows its whistle about American “abuses,” then what does that say about America?
It is not so much the content of the leaked Afghan war reports that confirms the propagandistic vocation of the new WikiLeaks, but rather the circumstances of their publication. Given the sheer quantity of the reports and their often highly technical character, it will take months if not years for serious analysts to sift through the data sufficiently so as to come to any robust conclusions about the course of the Afghan war. This, notwithstanding the fact that WikiLeaks helpfully pre-spins the material for its readers, noting, for example, in its introduction to the reports that
The material shows that cover-ups start on the ground. When reporting their own activities US Units are inclined to classify civilian kills as insurgent kills, downplay the number of people killed or otherwise make excuses for themselves.
But what truly gives away the game is the fact that three selected news organizations were given a substantial head start in viewing the files. This permitted the three organizations to enjoy the prestige of breaking the story and to set the terms of the debate even before the raw material had been posted online by WikiLeaks.
And what, above all, gives the game away is just which three news organizations have thus been granted the privilege of being WikiLeaks “media partners,” as the site refers to them. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and over the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there has developed a well-nigh metaphysical, so to say, dismal view of America and of the logic of American military interventions and counterterror operations. No three international print media organizations have done more to propagate this dismal view than precisely Germany’s Der Spiegel, Britain’s The Guardian, and America’s own New York Times.
very soon American liberals will get their fondest wish, life under sharia.. Good thing is that they will be the first ones stoned for sodomy
it is a clever snow job.
very few people delve deep into any story and few people question the motives.
it’s a sheeple world after all.
John Rosenthal,
An interesting article of the problems Wikileaks has in securing its sources, however
no mention made of some of the more interesting facts Julian Assange has been able to provide the American public.
-Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), is of “playing both sides” in Afghanistan by actively funding, training and deploying Taliban terrorists.
Granted, Wikileaks is a problematic entity, but as a taxpaying American, it is interesting to find billions of dollars spent in Afghanistan AND in foreign aid to Pakistan is being WASTED in a poorly planed and operated mission. We are actually paying I.S.I. to coordinate the Taliban to kill our troops? WoW!
ISA playing both sides is hardley news to anyone paying attention. That fact could be found on Wikipedia.
As if the people who work in CIA, MOSSAD and M15 are saints. Huh. Nobody is playing a double game. Everybody plays for national interests.
Not sure where the American liberal wishes came into this article, Obviously someone with closer ties to islam, then noted, “comfortable”. Truth will not be sharia as a shared adaptable language here when confronted with p .308 . Are you a prohet of the dark side? or perhaps a soothsayer of Islamic mentality? I will not dismiss those here who wish to applicate thier religous jihad upon others. It will be shortlived as there are many here aware. The rat holes are obvious. Not, as if no ones been paying any attention. It will be unfortunately unreasonably safe perhaps for the innocent who perhaps won’t be distinquished from the evil. When evil is allowed to develop in a free nation, its perpetuation is only as longlived as allowed. It will be a short trip with a very bad ending…
I don’t claim to be prophetic, but the first time I saw Wickileak’s “spokesman” on television, blinking and squinting under his shock of white hair, I thought: That man’s not right. Not right wing conservative, and not right in the head.
People need to be critical of WikiLeaks. We have no idea what their agenda is and releasing classified information like that is dangerous and should be considered treasonous.
The question, however, is what the Obama administration plans to do about it, besides wagging a disapproving finger at WikiLeaks of course.
when the names and address were released…ANYONE connected with the release should have been been arrested for treason..no trial, just shot.
The soldier that was supposedly at the heart of this leak…has been portrayed as a poor pitiful mistreated soul…BS, he should be given no quarter, just executed.
Awesome, mememe. Your execution of the accused by fiat, without trial, would do Saddam Hussein (and any number of Afghan warlords) proud.
I agree that people are engaging in espionage against the United States and that Americans who are taking part in that are traitors as well as spies, and I agree that during wartime that both those things ought to be punished by death…but, if we capture people, they get a trial before we execute them.
As far as Assange and people like him go, they’re fair targets for bombing raids or assassins, but if we should happen to capture them, they also get a trial before we execute them.
At least that’s the way I’d do it.
‘Get a trial before we execute them’? How very gracious of you, but it sounds like you’ve already sealed their fate. A trial isn’t just a formality to keep human-rights activists happy you know?
I became suspicious of Wikileaks when I attempted to search their documents on Iran. Particularly a document titled “Iran blocks Wikileaks. In this document it claims that:”Since 2007 the United States has publicly earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars for Iranian destabilization efforts, a good portion of which has gone into funding anti-government media.” which is totally false. The only two US organizations that broadcast to Iran are Voice of American and Radio Liberty (Radio Farda. These two organizations can hardly be categorized as “anti government” media. In fact just the opposite they work hand and glove with IRI and are largley infiltrated by IRI agents. Then Wikileaks continues: “Far from being an anti-Iranian propaganda site, WikiLeaks has often exposed other countries’ plans actions or plans in relation to Iran. And while much of the anglophone press ran clearly fabricated documents showing a Mousavi landslide in the country’s Presidential elections, WikiLeaks did not (this is not to say that there was no election fraud). ”
The obvious partiality toward the rapist regime of Iran which has for the past 31 years raped, tortured, stones its women, hangs and censored its citizens (portrayed as a vivtim) by Wikileaks show the propaganda and left leaning nature of Wilileaks operators.
So it’s 2010 and judging by the comments here it seems the Pajamas readers think the answer to America’s problems is a witch hunt.
Purge the illegals from our land, burn the Islamic followers, you know that kind of thing. Well it is an American tradition I suppose.
Anyway, about the article…
Wikileaks has been propaganda from the left from the start. I have common cause with them, but can’t help but notice if they just shut up and let the evidence speak for itself it would be better for whatever goal it is they’re trying to further.
I’m curious about the connections, but then again Pajamas has distributed outrageous and ham handed attempts to discredit green energy development from groups that receive Oil company funding and doesn’t seem to question their source.
Anyway, I’m not sure it makes much sense to raise suspicion over a domain name lapse, in an organization with barely a quater mil, what maybe four or five staff for the year? Seems plausible that this would happen. The fact is, if I wanted to leak something I’d sneaker-net it, not submit it over a medium developed by a US defense initiative (or Al Gore I sometimes forget).
I’m curious to see what’s in part II.
‘Green Energy’ is an oxymoron.
Billy Mays has nothing to do with this. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
you beat me to the punch.
It’s 2010, you say ?
Are you sure ?
The following is from the ratnet Huffpo:
Taliban execute pregnant woman. Taliban insurgents flogged and publicly executed a pregnant Afghan widow for alleged adultery Saturday, according to reports.
The woman, Sanum Gul (also reported as Bibi Sanubar by DAWN), was killed in Badghis province in western Afghanistan Saturday morning, the provincial governor’s spokesman said. After being held in captivity for three days and flogged 200 times, Gul — whose age was given as both 35 and 47 in various reports — was shot in the head three times, said Hashim Habibi, the district governor of Qades, also located in the province.
Not sure how you can be shocked and disgusted by the Taliban, but think it’s okay when the U.S. shoots and bombs thousands in the name of peace and democracy. Oh, wait–I forgot about the automatic pass any U.S. violence gets from the Pajamas crowd. Because, you know, our intentions are noble and therefore the suffering and death we are spreading across the Middle East are just and righteous. When we use extreme violence to acheive our goals, it’s “foreign policy.” When others use it, it’s terrorism. So hard to remember this.
How sad for you. It must be a terrible thing indeed to be so confused and utterly bereft of any sense of history. There’s simply no other explanation for your messy and erroneous conflation of the actions of world’s worst tyrannies with the actions of the US against them.
I can’t imagine the Conservatives would bring us to such a backward state as that.
Seriously, you want me to launch a crusade to end all the world’s problems? Why don’t you join Amnesty International I hear they’re trying to try the Taliban for war crimes.
It’s like Bush choosing to invade Iraq while Sudanese muslims keep Christians in slavery. We can’t save everybody, but if someone needs saving and they just happen to be sitting on an oil field… well those are our kind of oppressed people (that’s not a crack at Bush entirely, it’s just the way the world works).
Speaking of which, who left the Taliban in charge? Oh yeah we did. We poured money and arms into the region to fight Russia then just kind of left it to become a miserable theocratic regime.
I agree…purge and burn!!!
Mexican always does that to me too. Pains me just to sit down.
I think you are mistaken its not the Mexican food thats doing that to you Lefty.
In response to David W. Walters
To anybody who has been reading the Long War Journal it is not news to hear the ISI has been playing both sides. That fact has been public knowledge from the beginning. The surprising thing is that the media tries to pretend it’s a surprise. Everything else was already in the public domain, if one bothered to go look it up.
In fact, the only “news” in the Wikileaks file dump has been the names and addresses of Afghani informants. Now the Taliban has a convenient hit list to work from, while the arrogant Assange complains he’s “too busy” to redact the names of these innocent civilians. Perhaps that was the whole point of the leak in the first place? To undermine NATO & the US by making it too dangerous for the civilian population to ever trust the West again.
And makes any kind of victory almost impossible. Add in a timetable for withdrawl and any Afghan who supports us has to be nuts.
Cui prodest? (Medea, Seneca)
Wikileaks’ motives harken to those of the hard left media during Vietnam. They are a propaganda mouthpiece for the “Hate America” left whose primary purpose is to undermine the efforts to rid Afghanistan of barbarians and allow the inhabitants to live peaceful, productive and prosperous lives. They’ll hide behind all kinds of pious mouthings, but the bottom line is that they would prefer to see the inhabitants of the world live in disease-ridden poverty, squalor and ignorance than to see the US do anything to help anyone. The narrative that the US is tha bad guy no matter what MUST be upheld at all costs. All the world must hate the US because these individuals do. It’s how they think (if you want to call it that!)
BTW – Does anyone else think this guy looks like some bad rendering of the evil villain straight from central casting? How can anyone take this guy seriously???
This article is dishonest by means of omission. It’s true that Wikileaks’ standard “submit file” form provides less than adequate security. However, if you would have bothered to actually read the entire Submissions page, you would have noticed that Wikileaks also offers a way of digitally submitting documents over the TOR network, which IS extremely secure (much more than simple SSL encryption), and for truly sensitive information, Wikileaks suggests physically submitting a compact disc or DVD containing it, and provides shipping addresses and additional instructions for that purpose. The standard SSL form is for extremely low-level “hey look my boss is embezzling money” stuff, not classified government documents.
Dear sir i have also tried to get the whistleblowers organization involved in my case and they only sent me names of employment attorneys but on the other hand i have also tried your organization and nothing so why should i believe you have any more integrity than them or the doj or the oig none of you have done anything about this and now i find out my children are being abused due to a corrupt system what do you think my comment should be?
IIRC, somewhere along the timeline of the climategate leak, those files were submitted to Wikileaks, and promptly ignored. This would tend to confirm your hypothesis.
I’m not sure I understand your criticism. Wikileaks made a decision to take on an agenda with publishing it’s content. Apparently, perhaps, you value the information you have already received about the Afghan war from corporations with agendas, namely econommic ones that revolve around maintaining good relations with establishment sources. But when an organization with an agenda to undermine such accounts appears, you are suddenly skeptical. This is inherent stupidity, I don’t care if you’re a hacker or a neocon. Wikileaks may have decided to shift away from a leaking/hacking paradigm, but that’s hardly a reason to undermine their contributions to the debate about the Afghan war. If it was, then you’d have to discount almost everything you know about the war so far, as it comes from more compromised sources.
But please do blather on on America’s number one Republican propaganda device about the dangers of non-party affiliated propaganda.
‘I’m not sure I understand your criticism.’
Do tell. Here’s a cluebat. It is not about the corporate boogie man who lurks in your closet. Nor is it about the America’s number one Republican propaganda device boogie man under the bed who keeps you awake nights in terror. Nor is it about protected rights of a whistleblower – that concerns illegal or criminal practices and leaking classified documents is NOT covered under the Whistle-blower Act. It’s about irresponsibly releasing documents that place human beings at risk of death. And claiming some ersatz moral imperative in doing so.
But hey, what the hell, it’s not Assange, nor you, that is at risk.
By the way, get with the program bunkie. PJM is America’s number one conservative propaganda device, not America’s number one republican propaganda device. Big difference. But then, if your reading comprehension were up to understanding that, you wouldn’t have read the article and comments and then have written, ‘I’m not sure I understand your criticism.’ Assuming you read the article at all.
I totally agree with you.
The names and addresses that were put out have compromised people’s lives, their families etc. It was a total disregard for life.
I believe it was put out, leaked.., for vengeance, nothing more.
Vengeance for not being the hot kid on the block, vengeance for not having the spotlight on your org, vengeance for not being “important” enough. “Look at me” moment…mean vengeance which will come back and bite them in the butt and get some people killed
OOHHHH …can’t you just see that sweet
faced young private in the “general population” at Leavenworth…all of Wikileaks should be joining him.
Human beings are already at risk of death for arguably worse reasons than those motivating the Wikileaks people. Whatever “ersatz moral imperative” happens to be driving them is no worse than that which is driving the war effort in the first place. If the leakage of these recent documents is indeed a hail mary attempt to force the United States into withdrawing from Afghanistan, that’s not an act of irresponsibility, it’s a calculated move to affect the course of events in a way that the actor or actors involved feel is most morally responsible. Of course you can disagree with their motivations, but you should respect the fact that it’s not an act of carelessness or indifference.
Though it’s clear that you misunderstood the gentleman’s post to which you are responding. He made the very valid point that any data about the Afghan War that trickles down to the average person is inherently going to have an agenda because it has been filtered through organizations and people that wouldn’t be reporting it if they didn’t have some vested interest in the outcome of the war. Hitting Julian Assange for having a supposed leftist agenda is irrelevant in that context.
Ha. Like they ever lose sleep about killing Afghans at weddings. They don’t care about the Afghans and Americans put at risk either. They just want you not to talk about things they don’t like; it makes their pee pees shrivel. That’s all you have to know when you talk to such people. They aren’t defending a position—the inherent hypocrisy that oozes from every sentence they construct proves that…risk innocent lives, indeed. Like we haven’t killed 600 innocent Afghans every year for the past eight years without any of these idiots batting an eye. No, when you argue with them, all you need to know is that every thing you say that they don’t like makes their pee pees shrivel. That’s about as seriously as you should take their responses.
I understood the gentleman’s comment that I was responding to. His comment was the same narrow gauge and dogmatic progressive cant that it always is.
‘Whatever “ersatz moral imperative” happens to be driving them is no worse than that which is driving the war effort in the first place.’
When you grow up and understand what it means to be a responsible citizen, you’ll look back on thoughts like this and wonder how you could have been so vapid.
‘any data about the Afghan War that trickles down to the average person is inherently going to have an agenda because it has been filtered through organizations and people that wouldn’t be reporting it if they didn’t have some vested interest in the outcome of the war’
That is utter nonsense. It’s no more true the second time around than when Gouda Cheese took that position.
Case in point.
Broadcasting your puerile interest in conservative ‘pee pees’, while understandable coming from an emasculated progressive drone, is not the way to go about breaking your fascination with those nasty habits you practice in your basement. Shutting off the porn rather than letting the world know why it captures your attention would be my advice.
whistle-blower? How about espionage by foreign nationals?
Publishing a hit list for the Taliban complete with GPS locations. Some of you seem to support this behavior, not sure what that says about you. As for funding I would be willing to bet that the criminal GS is involved.
This story is more full of innuendo than fact–I hope Part II is better….
I think Julian Assange should be sued by the whomever is physically hurt by his actions. If someone is killed, their family should sue & he should go to jail. I view him as an egomaniac.
WL is the most effective project against hetrosexual power. Keep suporting WL economicaly lets make an end to hetrosexual sociatys. Buy only from homosexual producers. If you work in a shop – help brothers buy giving them free stuff. Every social group based om hetrosexual rules should be destroyed, infiltrate them and brake them apart.
I remember when WL was relevant. Where are my UFO pics damnit! Oh yeah, Eurotrash suck it, America Rules!!