Skip to content

Phase III – Stealth Is.

“In the quietude, you may find solace in knowing.” “In knowing, you will find the solace of quietude.”

Archive

Tag: Wikileaks

Whether or not you believe that Wikileaks and Julian Assange are functionaries of Washington’s sophisticated intelligence web, what is clearly undeniable is that the existence of the document dumping site is being used by the State to end internet privacy, and place restrictions on free speech, the availability of public domain information, and to legally prosecute users of certain websites.

Presently, the United States is conducting its own secret Grand Jury investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. At the centre of Washington’s effort is the targeting of WikiLeaks’ DNS host, Dynadot, based in California. With this case, the US Government is hoping to rewrite the current rulebook regarding freedom on internet.

The government’s ability to shut down any website’s DNS means that it will be able to effectively lock the users’ gateway into any website deemed to be in violation of the US’s dubious, and wholly unconstitutional USA Patriot Acts I & II.

With the majority of the world’s DNS houses residing within the US, a precedent like this could give the US Federal Government carte blanch to seize and liquidate any number of websites that might fall into the state’s new and elastic definition of ‘espionage’, or are deemed to be a ‘threat to national security’.

With the backing of a Federal Court order, Washington soon hopes to gain the right to ‘legally’ sequester confidential user information including subscriber names, user names, screen names, mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, temporary IP addresses and credit card payment and billing details.

Former WikiLeaks associate destroyed potentially explosive documents

An incredibly infuriating Wikileaks revelation, via the Nation. To sum up: desperately poor Haiti planned to raise its minimum wage from 24 cents per hour to 62 cents, angering the contractors for U.S. corporations such as Levis and Hanes, who pay slave wages to Haitians who sew our clothes. The Obama administration intervened on behalf of those companies, and bullied the Haitian government into setting the mark at 32 cents.

To put things in perspective, upping the hourly wage to 62 cents would have cost Hanes an additional $1.6 million each year. Hanesbrands turned $211 million in profit last year and CEO Richard Noll personally was paid $10 million.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in the Arctic ostensibly to discuss preserving its unique environment, a disturbing series of communications revealed today by wikileaks tell another story.

These cables confirm what we have long been saying: several nations – including the US – appear ready to go to war over Arctic oil.

For years now, the military forces of Arctic nations like Russia, the US, Norway, and even Canada and Denmark have been watching the ice melt in the far north and getting ready to assert claims to the oil and gas resources that have previously been covered by ice.

Saber rattling and high level posturing has steadily increased over the past five years, exemplified by Russia using a nuclear submarine to plant their flag on the seafloor near the North Pole.

Arctic countries have increased military exercises in these remote waters, with territorial disputes persisting between the US and Canada, between Canada and Denmark, and between Russia and pretty much everybody else. Not wanting to be left out, Norway, already an oil giant, is in the mix as well.

Other nations are busy seeking to extend their territorial boundaries in the Arctic under provisions in the United Nations Law of the Sea, the international agreement that is best suited to reduce tensions in the region. Incredibly, the US has not ratified this treaty, which could leave the US out of the picture as the rest of the Arctic nations resolve their claims.

Despite interest from President Obama and his predecessors from both parties in ratifying the Law of the Sea treaty, a few reactionaries in the US Senate have been allowed to prevent that so far.

One of the more startling revelations in Wikileaks documents was that the former US Ambassador to Denmark connected Danish government officials to Wall Street financiers, in order to get Denmark cash to “exploit” their resources and gain trust with US. This would seem to contradict the stated interests of those who say we must get the oil for ourselves, but I guess they’re willing to make an exception if their friends on Wall Street can still make a buck (or a billion of them).

President Obama has included stewardship of the Arctic’s unique environment as one of the top priorities in his draft National Ocean Policy, but the early indications revealed here imply that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have a different agenda. While oil from the Deepwater Horizon is still washing ashore in the Gulf of Mexico, Secretary Clinton appears to be focused on how to make sure the US gets their share of any future Arctic oil finds.

Instead, Secretary Clinton and President Obama’s considerable diplomatic skills are needed to negotiate a new international agreement to protect the Arctic from offshore drills and spills, both to preserve this unique wilderness and to prevent the current tensions from escalating out of control. No one wants the Arctic to become the next Middle East, so an international agreement to ban drilling and mining may be the best chance for peace in the region as well as for the health of the Arctic ecosystem.

via Greenpeace

A former Swiss banker on Monday supplied documents to WikiLeaks that he alleges detail attempts by wealthy business leaders and lawmakers to evade tax payments.

Rudolf Elmer, an ex-employee of Swiss-based Bank Julius Baer, said there were 2,000 account holders named in the documents, but refused to give details of the companies or individuals involved.

He has previously offered files to WikiLeaks on financial activities in the Cayman Islands and faces a court hearing in Zurich on Wednesday to answer charges of coercion and violating Switzerland’s strict banking secrecy laws.

“I do think as a banker I have the right to stand up if something is wrong,” said Elmer, who addressed reporters at London’s Frontline Club alongside WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

And

Seems Bank of America was so nervous about what Wikileaks would be revealing about them, that they went on the attack, and now we have some of the details about this, ironically thanks to both Wikileaks and a similar organization, Crowdleaks.

A very interesting anonymous post on this matter was made over at the Slashdot website:

Three information security consultancies with links to US spy agencies cooked up a dirty tricks campaign late last year to destroy Wikileaks by exploiting its perceived weaknesses, reads a presentation released by the whistleblowers’ (pdf) organization that it claimed to be from the conspirators. Consultants at US defense contractors Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and HBGary proposed to lawyers for a desperate Bank of America an alliance that would work to discredit the whistleblowers’ website using a divide and conquer approach. Since the plan was hatched, disgruntled volunteers mentioned in the PDF broke away from Wikileaks, financial institutions withdrew services, Apelbaum was harassed by the US Government and Amazon denied service to Wikileaks’ website.

Monsanto - Evilest corporation in the world.

“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU” [Emphasis added] –Recommendation by US Ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton.Wikileaked cables released over the weekend revealed more about the US’ role as a global bully, trying to thrust unpopular genetically modified (GM) crops onto cautious governments and their citizens. In a 2007 cable from Craig Stapleton, then US Ambassador to France, he encouraged the US government to “reinforce our negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology by publishing a retaliation list.” A list, he added, that “causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility.”

The stated reason for their attack was that “Europe is moving backwards not forwards” on GMOs, with “France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [EU] Commission.” The Ambassador was concerned that France and others would put a ban on the cultivation of Monsanto’s GM corn seeds called Mon 810, engineered with a gene that produces a toxic insect-killing pesticide in every cell. Mon 810 is the first GM crop approved for planting EU-wide and has been a test case for biotech expansionism into the continent.

According to the cable, the Ambassador also rejected the France’s new “Grenelle” environment process, which looks beyond just the science of new technologies to also take into account “common interest.” Evidently a government that looks out for common interest is just too much for Ambassador Stapleton. He wrote, “Combined with the precautionary principle, this is a precedent with implications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation.”

He was also upset about France’s draft biotech law that “would make farmers and seed companies legally liable for pollen drift.” This concept that the “polluter pays” is a foundational principle of US law–except for GMOs. Here Stapleton also wants France to give a free pass for Monsanto and the other GM seed companies.

The French government and EU Commission tried to placate the US suggesting that the rejections of Mon 810 “are only cultivation rather than import bans.” But Stapleton says, “We see the cultivation ban as a first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to ban or further restrict imports.”

The ambassador fails to point out that a de facto ban of GM ingredients in food has been in place since 1999, not by the government, but by the food industry. They have kept GMOs out of their products due to widespread consumer concern about the health effects. Since foods containing GMOs must be labeled in Europe, companies always source non-GMO food to avoid that label.

See Also: A Link Between Monsanto, Blackwater & Bill Gates?

Like him or not he manages to make several valid points, I appreciate someone in politics bothers to take a stab at speaking some truth.

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Pluses in WikiLeaks Disclosures

WikiLeaks has teased the genie of transparency out of a very opaque bottle, and powerful forces in America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying desperately to stuff the genie back in. The people listed below this release would be pleased to shed light on these exciting new developments.

How far down the U.S. has slid can be seen, ironically enough, in a recent commentary in Pravda (that’s right, Russia’s Pravda): “What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic … After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts can be paralyzing, especially when … government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. …”

So shame on Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and all those who spew platitudes about integrity, justice and accountability while allowing war criminals and torturers to walk freely upon the earth. … the American people should be outraged that their government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.

Odd, isn’t it, that it takes a Pravda commentator to drive home the point that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history. Most of our own media are demanding that WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange be hunted down — with some of the more bloodthirsty politicians calling for his murder. The corporate-and-government dominated media are apprehensive over the challenge that WikiLeaks presents. Perhaps deep down they know, as Dickens put it, “There is nothing so strong … as the simple truth.”

As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary over the weekend has tried to portray Assange’s exposure of classified materials as very different from — and far less laudable than — what Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

Motivation? WikiLeaks’ reported source, Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, having watched Iraqi police abuses, and having read of similar and worse incidents in official messages, reportedly concluded, “I was actively involved in something that I was completely against.” Rather than simply go with the flow, Manning wrote: “I want people to see the truth … because without information you cannot make informed decisions as a public,” adding that he hoped to provoke worldwide discussion, debates, and reform.


The founder of the whistleblowing website Wikileaks today defended his decision to publish thousands of secret US military files about the war in Afghanistan, faced with criticism from the White House for placing troops in danger.

Julian Assange said his organisation was currently working through a backlog of further secret material and was expecting a “substantial increase in submissions” from whistleblowers after one of the biggest leaks in US military history.

He said the files showed that “thousands” of war crimes may have been committed in Afghanistan.

The documents have revealed unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings and information about secret operations against Taliban leaders, as well as highlighting US fears that Pakistan’s intelligence service was aiding the Afghan uprising.

Assange rejected accusations that the leak had compromised America’s national security. “We are familiar with groups whose abuse we expose attempting to criticise the messenger to distract from the power of the message.”

“We don’t see any difference in the White House’s response to this case to the other groups that we have exposed. We have tried hard to make sure that this material does not put innocents at harm. All the material is over seven months old so is of no current operational consequence, even though it may be of very significant investigative consequence.”