Powered by WebAds

Thursday, May 03, 2012

Where is Wikileaks when you need them?

There's a fascinating archive of papers sitting in Tunisia. Its exposure would fascinate the world. It's the archive of Yasser Arafat's papers and it includes plans for terror attacks. Who knows - maybe it includes Yasser's secret Swiss bank account numbers.

There are at least three contenders for the archives: Fatah, Hamas and Suha. Who will get it? I would love to see Wikileaks buy it and publicize it....
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has demanded that the archive of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat be handed over to his care, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported Thursday.

The documents, which are currently in Tunisia, reportedly contains fascinating information on planned terror attacks against Israeli targets, the funding sources of terror organizations and negotiations with Israeli officials from the political and security establishments.

The London-based Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported this week that the archive has been a point of contention ever since Arafat’s death in 2004 and the Hamas-Fatah split. "Both Hamas and Fatah have wanted the archive…however, an agreement between the PLO and former Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali did not allow for the archives to be handed over,” the report stated.

...

It was further reported that Arafat's widow, Suha, has also been trying to obtain the documents.

Abbas, Yedioth Ahronoth said, has filed an official request with the Tunisian government to have the documents transferred over to him. Sources told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that the Palestinians will seek at least an electronic version of the archive.

"These documents are part of out national and operational history," a Palestinian news outlet said. "If there are secrets, it is time they are revealed, even if it causes embarrassment to leaders and heads of intelligence agencies in the Arab community."

Arafat refused to transfer the documents from Tunis for fear that Israel would get its hands on them.
Calling Mr. Assange! Calling Mr. Assange!

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Video: WIkileaks founder Julian Assange interviews Hassan Nasrallah

A man in hiding interviews a man in hiding: Wikileaks founder interviews Hezbullah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah on Russia Today.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News).



Gee, you think he wants to destroy Israel or something? What do you think, Dan Meridor?

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Assange accuses Jews and WHO of a smear campaign?

The fact that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused Jews of conducting a smear campaign against him is no big deal - that happens every Muntag and Danershtag (that would be Monday and Thursday for those of you who aren't members of the tribe that controls the world). The real news here is that he accuses al-Guardian - AL-GUARDIAN!?! - of being part of the conspiracy (Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan).
His remarks appeared in the magazine Private Eye, in an article by its editor, Ian Hislop, who outlined a rambling phone call that Mr. Assange made on Feb. 16 to complain about the coverage of WikiLeaks.

He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks.

A lawyer for Mr. Assange could not immediately be reached for comment, but in a statement later released on the WikiLeaks Twitter feed, Mr. Assange said Mr. Hislop had “distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase.”

The Private Eye article quoted Mr. Assange as saying the conspiracy was led by The Guardian and included the newspaper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, and investigations editor, David Leigh, as well as John Kampfner, a prominent London journalist who recently reviewed two books about WikiLeaks for The Sunday Times of London.

When Mr. Hislop pointed out that Mr. Rusbridger was not Jewish, Mr. Assange countered that The Guardian’s editor was “sort of Jewish” because he and Mr. Leigh, who is Jewish, were brothers-in-law. Later, the article recounted, Mr. Assange asked Mr. Hislop to “forget the Jewish thing,” but he continued to insist there was a conspiracy against WikiLeaks based on the friendship among Mr. Rusbridger, Mr. Leigh and Mr. Kampfner.

In the Twitter feed, Mr. Assange said that “in particular” the Private Eye report that he believed in a “ ‘Jewish conspiracy’ is false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has tried to justify one smear with another.”
Israel Shamir is an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. I guess now we know that Assange is one too.

Jeffrey Goldberg adds:
One of the great advantages of being Jewish -- and there are many (we invented both ethical monotheism and whitefish salad, after all) -- is that though there are only about 14 million of us on the whole planet (18 million before World War II, Mr. Galliano), people can't stop talking about us! It is very exciting to be a part of so many different fantasies.
Actually, sometimes I think I'd rather be left alone to control the world.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, December 31, 2010

Assange claims Arab officials spy on their own countries for the CIA

In an interview with al-Jazeera's Arabic language network on Wednesday, Wikileaker Julian Assenge claimed to have names of Arab diplomats who are spying on their own countries for the CIA.
“These officials are spies for the U.S. in their countries,” Assange said, according to Qatar's Peninsula newspaper. More:
The interviewer, Ahmed Mansour, said at the start of the interview which was a continuation of last week’s interface, that Assange had even shown him the files that contained the names of some top Arab officials with alleged links with the CIA. [...]

Some Arab countries even have torture houses where Washington regularly sends ‘suspects’ for ‘interrogation and torture’, he said.
He then complained, "Washington is also projecting me as a terrorist and wants to convince the world that I am another Osama bin Laden."

Observers have long speculated about the massive "insurance" file that WikiLeaks posted on the Pirate Bay, which has by now been downloaded by thousand of people all over the world. Opening the file requires an encryption key that presumably would be released upon Assange's incarceration or untimely death. I guess it's the motherlode.
At Foreign Policy, Blake Hounshell doesn't believe it.
I have my doubts about these new claims, though. The CIA vigorously protects the identities of its sources, and would have no reason to let any old schmo at a U.S. embassy know their names. It is also highly doubtful that the cables would talk about "torture houses" -- the United States has always denied that it (knowingly) outsources rough treatment to foreign governments. Not everyone believes this, mind you, but I'd be surprised if any embassy cables said otherwise.

Maybe Assange and Mansour are confusing ordinary visits of Arab officials to U.S. diplomats with "spying," but it's hard to say for sure without seeing the cables themselves.
Hounshell is too quick to dismiss the stories of outsourcing torture. You can watch a CBS 60 Minutes report on outsourcing torture to Egypt and Jordan here, and there are reports that US was outsourcing torture of terrorists to those countries dating as far back as 2002. (To make it clear, I'm not criticizing that; I'm acknowledging the reality).

As to disclosing the names of Arab officials who are spying for the CIA, Hounshell knows this region well enough (he's based in Qatar) to know that ironclad evidence that would hold up in court is not a necessity. The accusation - especially coming from someone like Assange who is seen as somewhat credible - would be sufficient to put these peoples' lives in danger. I'd bet on the Qatari government telling al-Jazeera not to discuss this again. Because it's probably true.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: , ,

Monday, December 06, 2010

What Wikileaks exposed

Ari Shavit argues that Wikileaks has exposed the falsity of the accepted dogma in the Middle East (Hat Tip: Daily Alert).
Then along came Assange and shattered the dogma. The secret documents that WikiLeaks published proved that the settlements, the occupation and even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were not the main problem in the Middle East. The confidential e-mails proved that the world they were talking about in Washington, Paris and London was an imaginary world. Assange proved that there was no connection between the real Middle East and the Middle East they talk about in The Washington Post, Le Monde and The Guardian. He revealed that the entire Arab world is currently busy with one problem only - Iran, Iran, Iran.

There is no doubt about it - Assange is a dangerous criminal. But he is dangerous not because he penetrated the Pentagon's information systems but because he revealed the Western intelligentsia's lack of intellectual integrity. Assange is dangerous not because he leaked state secrets on an unprecedented scale but because he revealed to us all that the West's hegemonic discourse is superficial and mendacious. Assange is dangerous not because he embarrassed the West's allies but because he proved that the West is contaminated by political correctness that cuts it off from the diplomatic reality. Assange placed a giant mirror in front of us all and proved the extent to which we had been duped in recent decades. A false dogma has prevented us from looking logically at the historic challenge facing us.

...

The lesson is a bitter one. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, peace will disappear. A nuclear Iran will deal a final blow to the chance of achieving a compromise between Israelis and Arabs. Therefore the dove of peace has to be extremely hawkish toward Iran. The peace-seeker must deal with Iran.
Indeed. I should hasten to add that I do not agree with much of the rest of what Shavit rights in this article.

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 29, 2010

What are you going to do about it?

The Washington Post published a letter from State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh to Wikileaks and its lawyer urging them not to release the thousands of 'secret' diplomatic cables that were released on Sunday. The letter is a metaphor for the Obama administration: It's pathetic.
In your letter, you say you want – consistent with your goal of “maximum disclosure” – information regarding individuals who may be “at significant risk of harm” because of your actions.

Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks’ databases.
I'm sure Julian Assange is just quaking in his boots from that threat.

Anyone else here old enough to remember Daniel Ellsberg? Ellsberg stole documents from the Penmtagon and gave them to several US newspapers to publish in 1971. While the government was unable to prevent their publication, they did take all the newspapers to court and the resulting legal expenses (it went to the Supreme Court) were enough to make the newspapers think twice about doing that sort of thing again. Until now. They also drove Ellsberg into psychiatric care.

What's missing from Koh's letter is something every lawyer puts into a letter like that: A threat. What are we going to do if you don't listen to us? We'll sue you. We'll go to court and try to freeze any assets you have in the United States.

Please don't get me wrong. As an Israeli, I'm thrilled that these documents were published because they have vindicated everything we have been saying for the last two years. If the documents had said something different, I would not have been so thrilled. But yes, I'm happy they were published.

However, a government cannot carry out its foreign policies if it cannot maintain confidentiality. What's in these documents would normally have come out in someone's memoirs 30 or 40 or 50 years from now. Instead it's come out in 'real time.' In a way that's a metaphor for our society today. Just like the Obama administration's weak efforts to stop it are a metaphor for American weakness.

What could go wrong?

Labels: , , ,

Google