WikiLeaks releases global sites vital to US

[maddezmom]

Source: AFP


WASHINGTON, Dec 6 - WikiLeaks has divulged a secret list of key infrastructure sites around the world that the United States believes could pose a critical danger to its security if they come under terrorist attack.

The newly released diplomatic cable threatens to be the most explosive yet out of many divulged by the whistle-blowing website that have heaped embarrassment on Washington and caused anger around the world.

Among other revelations, the latest WikiLeaks document dump showed Australia's then leader Kevin Rudd warning US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that force might be needed against China "if everything goes wrong."

A February 2009 cable from the State Department asked overseas US missions to list infrastructure and key resources around the globe "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security and/or national and homeland security of the United States".

It lists undersea cables, key communications, ports, mineral resources and firms of strategic importance in countries ranging from Austria to New Zealand. One item mentions smallpox vaccines in Denmark.





Read more: http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/World/WikiLeaks-releases-global-sites-vital-to-US-10767.html

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. LOL!

Another pathetic, naked attempt at ginning up anti-Assange sentiment. It is almost certain that the information that is being portrayed as so "vital" and "secret" is, and has always been, public knowledge.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

2. if it has always been public knowledge as you claim

I'm sure you can dig up a some of the info then and link us to it, keep in mind the links need to point out in some way that this is 'vital' for the us

[xTx]

7. Is it 'public knowledge' or not?

What does that (excuse?) even mean?

[ronnie624]

55. Yes,

the locations of bridges, buildings, airports, subways, power plants and many other potential 'targets', are and always have been public knowledge. Terrorists do not need government lists of targets. They are, doubtless, intelligent enough to make their own.

[EFerrari]

8. Yep. n/t

[xTx]

47. Proof? nt

[Turborama]

3. BBC: List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent

A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks.

The US State Department in February 2009 asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plant.

More details and link to the cable: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

Not sure I agree with the release of this one. How useful is this going to be to terrorists? (rhetorical question)

[MiniMe]

4. In Feb 2009 this administration was just getting started

It is a good question for them to ask. I don't think it is good that it was leaked.

[Turborama]

5. It raises the question, who is actually going to benefit from this release?

I know I won't.

[EFerrari]

9. Really? I'd think this list would be very valuable for people who follow

the news. For all kinds of reasons. It's a landscape of interest, in a sense.

[Turborama]

12. Even though it is interesting news, I don't find this information beneficial.

As I've said in the thread in GD about this release, I'm on the fence about it and am interested in reading others' reactions.

[SkyDaddy7]

26. Seriously, there has to be a line somewhere.

This is not lies or deception this is hard targets! I am all for disclosure of lies & stuff but this should not have been leaked it has no value other than to those who would like to attack them.

[EFerrari]

28. I disagree with that. Why shouldn't you be interested

in this information? Are there whole swathes of information we don't want to be burdened with?

There's no evidence that the location of these things was a secret. The cable was classified, not the information. I bet I can find anything on this list with google in about five minutes.

This article is meant to make you afraid of Assange. You're not meant to ask, can I find this information myself, or, does al Qaida really need this list to find a target?

[SkyDaddy7]

46. I will be waiting for the "Google Findings"...

I do not buy the "fear" thingy & like I said I support much of what Assange has released but there is no point for releasing this info...You or anyone else has no use whatsoever for this info...On the other hand our enemies do! And yes we do have enemies so please don't say we don't. I understand you think we should keep no secrets whatsoever and this is where I simply disagree. Lies & deception is much different than hard targets.

[ronnie624]

57. I'll be waiting for a coherent explanation,

for how public knowledge of this list threatens U.S. security, when everything on it, along with millions of other potential targets, could be easily compiled into a list, by anyone with a computer and an internet connection.

[EFerrari]

60. I actually haven't said what I think about reasonable confidentiality.

The fear thingy is real enough, how do you think Bush got us into Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Fruittree]

14. Exactly...

I don't understand why some people defend this guy. I go back to the same question I've had all along. What is the ultimate goal or purpose of this? And who gives him the right to single-handedly decide what is fair game to release particularly when what he releases can have an effect on a large number of people. That's too much power in one person's hands...

[GliderGuider]

61. The ultimate goal or purpose

is to constrain the communications of what Assange (and a lot of us here including me) see as a criminal conspiracy by international governments. More here, including Assange's own words:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4644170&mesg_id=4644447

Regarding "who gives him the right":

Nobody gives a sovereign citizen rights - some of them are inalienable. I remember reading that in some obscure document somewhere. I think the right to do decide for myself what to do with information I receive is one of those rights. It looks like Assange feels the same way.

[Fruittree]

64. While I agree with you that there is a lot that goes on among those in

charge that would be desirable to change, my concern is that this mostly seems to attack the US and bad as our government can be, I don't see the realistic alternatives out there being much better.

[Ghost Dog]

17. The CI/KR list in this cable is that of 2008. The cable requests updates to that list.

Here the Stockholm Embassy replies thus:

¶1. (S) In response to reftel, post would like to add Sweden's communications infrastructure to the CI/KR list. Although Sweden does not posses a direct undersea cable from the U.S., Sweden is a central European communications hub. For example, Swedish company TeliaSonera is an international carrier that owns and manages 43,000 km of fiber optic cable linking Russia and the Baltics to the rest of Europe and the U.S. If these lines of communications were to be destroyed, disrupted, or exploited, it may compromise global communications.

¶2. (S) Post recommends keeping Swedish pharmaceutical manufacturing company Recip AB on the CI/KR list for its production of ThyroSafe (potassium iodide). This resource provides protection in the aftermath of a nuclear emergency. ThyroSafe is the only FDA approved 65 mg potassium iodide tablet used to protect the thyroid gland against radioactive iodine released during a nuclear emergency.

[Downwinder]

10. Not very.

[Turborama]

13. Have you looked at the cable?

[Downwinder]

21. Yes.

That is why I don't think it would be very useful as a target list.

[Turborama]

22. So, it was a complete waste of time all those embassies carrying out the numerous assessments then?

[Downwinder]

23. The list might be valid for an unlimited super power war, but not for

terrorist targets. There are many more soft targets available that would have more and better effect.

[Turborama]

25. That may be your opinion. I'm not so sure...

¶1. (U//FOUO) This is an action request; see Para. 13.

¶2. (U//FOUO) Under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) was written to provide the unifying structure for the integration of critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR) protection into a single national program. The overarching goal of the NIPP is to build a safer, more secure, and more resilient America by enhancing protection of the nation's CI/KR to prevent, deter, neutralize or mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts by terrorists to destroy, incapacitate or exploit them; and to strengthen national preparedness, timely response, and rapid recovery in the event of an attack, natural disaster or other emergency.

¶3. (U//FOUO) In addition to a list of critical domestic CI/KR, the NIPP requires compilation and annual update of a comprehensive inventory of CI/KR that are located outside U.S. borders and whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States. DHS in collaboration with State developed the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative (CFDI)to identify these critical U.S. foreign dependencies -- foreign CI/KR that may affect systems within the U.S. directly or indirectly. State is coordinating with DHS to develop the 2009 inventory, and the action request in Para. 13 represents the initial step in this process.

¶4. (U//FOUO) The NIPP does not define CI/KR. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD 7) references definitions in two separate statutes. In the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195(e)) "critical infrastructure" is defined as systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(9)) "key resources" are defined as publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government.

¶5. (U//FOUO) The NIPP identifies 18 CI/KR sectors: agriculture and food; defense industrial base; energy; healthcare and public health; national monuments and icons; banking and finance; drinking water and water treatment systems; chemical; commercial facilities; dams; emergency services; commercial nuclear reactors, materials, and waste; information technology; communications; postal and shipping; transportation and systems; government facilities; and critical manufacturing. Obviously some of these sectors are more likely to have international components than other sectors.

¶6. (U//FOUO) Department is surveying posts for their input on critical infrastructure and key resources within their host country which, if destroyed, disrupted or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the United States. We expect posts, after consultation among all sections and agencies, will in many instances immediately recognize whether such CI/KR exist in their host country. Posts are not/not being asked to consult with host governments with respect to this request.

¶7. (U//FOUO) Building upon the initial survey completed in 2008, Department requests each post reassess and update information about infrastructure and resources in each host country whose loss could immediately affect the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States. This reassessment may include suggestions from posts for removing, modifying, or adding CI/KR to the list developed in 2008 (see the list of CI/KR identified in 2008 in Para. 15 below).

¶8. (U//FOUO) The following three categories should be considered when determining whether critical foreign dependencies exist in the host country: 1) direct physical linkages (e.g., pipelines, undersea telecommunications cables, and assets located in close enough proximity to the U.S. border their destruction could cause cross-border consequences, such as damage to dams and chemical facilities); 2) sole or predominantly foreign/host-country sourced goods and services (e.g., minerals or chemicals critical to U.S. industry, a critical finished product manufactured in one or only a small number of countries, or a telecom hub whose destruction might seriously disrupt global communications); and 3) critical supply chain nodes (e.g., the Strait of Hormuz and Panama Canal, as well as any ports or shipping lanes in the host-country critical to the functioning of the global supply chain).

¶9. (U//FOUO) Although they are important issues, Department is not/not seeking information at this time on second-order effects (e.g., public morale and confidence, and interdependency effects that might cascade from a disruption).

¶10. (U//FOUO) Posts do not need to report government facilities overseas managed by State or war fighting facilities managed by other departments or agencies.


¶11. (U//FOUO) The following general information should be addressed when nominating elements for inclusion, removal, or modification: -- (U//FOUO) Name and physical location of the asset, system, or supply chain node. -- (U//FOUO) Post's rationale for including, modifying, or removing an asset, system, or supply chain node. -- (U//FOUO) Any information Post has regarding conditions in country causing Post to believe the CI/KR is an active target or especially vulnerable due to natural circumstances. -- (U//FOUO) Any information Post has regarding CIP activities in country and who/what agency is responsible for those activities.

(redacted the paragraph with the email addresses WikiLeaks left in)

¶13. (U//FOUO) ACTION REQUEST: Posts are requested to report by March 20, 2009 on CI/KR in their host country meeting the criteria outlined above and a brief explanation of why posts believes the asset meets the criteria. Due to the potential sensitivity of assets identified, posts are asked to consider the necessity of classifying their responses appropriately. Please note the list in its entirety is classified S/NF. (redacted the name of an official WikiLeaks left in)

[No Elephants]

15. Remember, this is the lowest classification, meaning about 3 million people have authorized access.

And that's likely exclusive of people who were involved in creating these facilities. Cable locations, satellite sites, pipelines, communication and transport hubs, ports. Not really rocket science.

[Turborama]

18. I don't remember seeing any of the other cables saying this...

NOFORN, NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION

[No Elephants]

19. And?

[Turborama]

20. And that would mean it was more restricted than the other cables.

We don't know who was allowed to see this or not. It has been reported on CNN that 3,000,000 people had access to some of the cables. We and they don't know how many people had access to this one.

[No Elephants]

24. Nope. It's been reported that 3 million have access to stuff classified secret, not to "some of

cables." If you have clearance, you have clearance.

And no one changed the classification of this (that we've been told), only limited by one the ways in which the info could be transmitted. Those same 3 million could still get the info by mail, phone, morse code, signal flags--any media whatever, other than the net. That was probably to reduce the likelihood that a casual hacker would see it, not to restrict access by any of the 3 million folks who had clearance for "secret" stuff. I mean, Manning was a pfc, for pity's sake and he got it.

More important is the nature of the info. Anyone who sat down and gave the matter some thought could figure out that blowing up ports, satellites, communication and transportation hubs, etc. could mess up any nation. Ditto our missile silos, nuclear power plants and undersea cables. And then, it's a matter of research. Probably googling intelligently would do all a terrorist needed. Or, in some areas, taking a nice drive.

[Turborama]

27. It's been reported by who?

Please give an official citation that everything WikiLeaks has was available to 3,000,000 people. Thanks in advance...

Anyway, this is a gift to anyone who doesn't have the infrastructure to research everything that is on that list. If it was easy as you say, DHS could have just asked an office clerk to look it all up on Google for them instead of sending out the request to all their embassies.

[No Elephants]

32. On TV--and good luck

if you think I'm googling something I heard from TV. If you think I post facts carelessly, that's your problem. I don't think many here have that impression. My opinions are my opinions, but I don't post fake factual info.

You're the one who claimed keeping info from internet transmission must mean fewer people were allowed to see it. I guess I should just have asked you to find a link for that, instead of trying logical answers.


" If it was easy as you say, DHS could have just asked an office clerk to look it all up on Google for them instead of sending out the request to all their embassies."


You're trying to say because there were several ways to get the info and DHS chose one of the easier ones for DHS....

Oh, sorry, I don't know what your point is.


The issue is whether publishing this this info puts us in more danger from terrorists. My answer is, if a "terrorist" wanted to hit critical targets in any nation--or the U.S. did--it wouldn't be hard to find out where ports or transportation hubs hubs are for that nation by googling, asking people, etc. For instance, O'Hare would make a great target--and I never downloaded or googled anything to learn that5. If you live in the U.S., you probably know info like that

[Turborama]

34. I heard it on TV, too. And I suspect you're like me and don't believe everything they tell us.

Hence why I asked for an official citation. The reason I mentioned the "no internet" classification was to highlight that the cables have different levels of classification. I thought that would be obvious.

" If it was easy as you say, DHS could have just asked an office clerk to look it all up on Google for them instead of sending out the request to all their embassies."

If you don't understand what my point was, I don't think I can explain it any more simply to you.

Where I live is irrelevant, all that data is collated from people with on the ground knowledge working in embassies based all over the world.

[No Elephants]

35. Um, and your source to contradict me was CNN? So, neither of us has a reliable source then. Fine.

"Where I live is irrelevant..."

I never asked you where you live, nor would I. That's your business. I was using the generic "you." "If 'one' lives in the U.S., one knows O'Hare is transportation hub" is all I meant.

"The reason I mentione the internet classification was to highlight that the cables have different levels of classification. I thought that would be obvious."

Is obvious that different cables would/may have different levels of classification. Not obvious that someting stamped do not "transmit by internet" (or words to that effect) has a higher classification. Our very own government has said everything released by Manning had the lowest classification--"secret" and Manning had the lowest clearance. So, do you have a link to prove something that for something that can be transmitted by every possible means but one obviously has a higher classification than "secret?"


"If you don't understand what my point was, I don't think I can explain it any more simply to you."

Yeah, simplest stuff always sails right over my head. My point is, the fact that several ways to get information exist and DHS chose the one that required the least effort from DHS proves nothing, other than DHS is a bureaucracy commprised of beings with human nature. So, you were asking me to explain something that requires no explanation and proves nothing.


Edited to bold quotes and fix quotation marks and spelling typos and delete a sentence fragment.

[Turborama]

38. No, I I'm not trying to contradict you. I said I heard what you were stating as a fact on CNN.

Me: "It has been reported on CNN that 3,000,000 people had access to some of the cables."

You: "It's been reported that 3 million have access to stuff classified secret, not to "some of cables." If you have clearance, you have clearance."

That was not a contradiction using CNN.

This is speculation, though....

"And no one changed the classification of this (that we've been told), only limited by one the ways in which the info could be transmitted. Those same 3 million could still get the info by mail, phone, morse code, signal flags--any media whatever, other than the net. That was probably to reduce the likelihood that a casual hacker would see it, not to restrict access by any of the 3 million folks who had clearance for "secret" stuff. I mean, Manning was a pfc, for pity's sake and he got it."



I'm also not trying to make this personal. I was having a debate about the pros and cons of this release and that I can't see any pros but there are a lot of cons.

As soon as someone starts making a debate like this personal I lose interest in communicating with them.

Edited to add the speculation.

[No Elephants]

41. I made nothing personal, but whatever.

[JDPriestly]

6. This probably should not have been published.

But then, while the list seems to me to be one of those items that really should be protected as a secret, terrorists seem to have no problem figuring this stuff out. They think about our vulnerabilities. I don't. Other DUers probably don't.

It's kind of reassuring to know that our government is aware of where our vulnerable locations are. Not reassuring that this was published.

On the other hand, as I said, the terrorists thought of the WTC as a vulnerable place to fly into. That probably would never have been on the list of things I would have considered worth worrying about until it happened. This list may actually mean that the terrorists stay far, far away from the sites on the list because our government will be watching them.

So, again, the release of this information seems negative, but it might actually be positive in the long run. Hard to tell.

[Citizen Worker]

11. JDP, take a look around you and I'm willing to wager that within say a 25 mile radius you will be

able to come up with a minimum of 5 likely terrorist targets. Hell, I can come up with 3 within a 5 mile radius. Potential targets abound and there's no way in hell that they can all be protected. Just can't be done. So, after we spend how many hundreds of billions trying to reassure the public that they're safe from attack we'll be attacked at one of these all too common all too visible sites that we just couldn't secure because there isn't enough personnel to guard them 24/7. Any decent military planner is watching to see what it is we deem important by guarding and what we don't. Hint, it's what we don't deem important that will be attacked, I guarantee it.

[JDPriestly]

58. I'm in LA. I can come up with a lot more than five.

The problem with the list is that it could give amateur terrorists, that is crazy folks, ideas they wouldn't otherwise be able to think of.

[No Elephants]

16. I think the WTC was chosen for its symbolism, not its vulnerability to planes

It was attacked twice, only once by plane. And, in a video, supposedly filmed in Afghanistan, Bin Laden is sitting with a few people saying, "It had never entered our minds that the whole building would fall. We thought we'd damage only a couple of floors.' (Or words to that effect.) This was released years ago and, as far as I could tell, it was Ben Laden.


Please also see Reply 15.

[itzallanillusion]

29. Its NOT that bad..

Look, he is opening everything up.. saying look, here are these sites, the threat is low, nothing will happen and the fact that we have been told for so long that something will happen has kept us locked in that thought process.. after sept 11th all sites available on the internet accessible by google earth and other organziations were checked and vetted and found that less than 1% of these sites were useful to a terroist and that they could get them from other sources if they really wanted to. Those sites were pulled from view to the publice on the internet for location purposes. If any of these places are not suppose to be found, they will not be available to be found. If anyone with a brain really wants to find something they will.. this is nothing! Just him showing us how ridiculous the whole "terror" thing is..

[No Elephants]

36. Or him showing the U.S. he has stuff a little more cerebral than "Gaddafi is always seen with his

blond nurse." (Also, LOL at even classifying something anyone who has seen Gaddafi out and about can see with his or her own eyes.)

[Nihil]

63. Excellent points.

> Look, he is opening everything up.. saying look, here are these sites, the
> threat is low, nothing will happen and the fact that we have been told for
> so long that something will happen has kept us locked in that thought process..
> ...
> If anyone with a brain really wants to find something they will.. this is nothing!
> Just him showing us how ridiculous the whole "terror" thing is..

Thank you for that (and welcome to DU!).

Indeed, the reaction on DU (not to mention the other US media) has been little
short of blind outraged panic from certain quarters as they (or their bosses)
are realising that the whole "terror" farce is a bad case of the Emperor's
New Clothes ...

:toast:

[tanyev]

30. Seems like that would be pretty easy for someone to figure out on their own.

Or Google.

[Turborama]

31. There's no point employing anyone in any embassy to do this then, in that case. n/t

[tanyev]

33. Well, if the higher-ups are too busy or too lazy to do their own Googling.

[No Elephants]

37. False. The point is, it's easier to ask many someones, who probably have

a lot of this info off the top of their respective heads, then to do worldwide research yourself. So, why reinvent the wheel? Or many wheels? And I never met a bureaucrat who did work someone else could do easier than they and would do for them.

However, that has little to do with whether one or more terrorists--or even law abiding folk--could duplicate the info with some effort. Or, at least enough of the info to cause as much harm as they want to transportation, communication and human beings.

[Turborama]

40. This has informed any anti-American malcontent what America definitively sees as: "Critical...

....infrastructure... ...whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States."

No amount of Googling will tell you how critically important DHS view these assets, it is only something that can come from the horses mouth.

I have been supportive of what WikiLeaks has been doing (as can be seen by the multiple OPs I have started) but I'm troubled by this one.

[GliderGuider]

42. If Assange's goal is to impede internal communications within the government

Then at some point the stakes have to become high enough for the conspirators to respond seriously and actually start shutting down their communications channels in fear of further disclosures. This release is a small step in that direction.

[Turborama]

43. If Assange is playing with people's lives to put into practice his theory

...it is a very dangerous experiment which could go horribly wrong and cost untold amounts of lives.

He's assuming that everything the government does is evil and it must be stopped at any price? What if he's wrong?

I thought it was initially to try and stop the wars, then I thought it was about trying to give some transparency to what is going on behind the scenes and now it's some grand masterplan of Julian Assange to cure all the problems of the world?

I'm having serious doubts about where I stand on all this now, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

[GliderGuider]

44. Who will die if he doesn't do this?

Different people, that's all. It's not as though allowing the governmental conspiracy to retain their cloak of invisibility will magically protect everyone. It just lets them kill the ones they want to with impunity. Untold numbers of people (starting with a million innocent Iraqis) have already died as a result of the secrecy.

What are the odds that Assange is wrong about governments not having our best interests at heart? What are the odds? what have we all seen for the last few decades? I don't think Assange is out to fix the world, just to get in the way of one aspect of the clusterfuck.

You're skepticism is understandable. I have a different take on it, though. Assange has my support even more now that the game is beginning to get serious.

[Turborama]

45. You think Assange has the right to make that decision?

What makes him more qualified than anyone else to decide who lives or dies?

"The government conspiracy", without any specifics I'm afraid this is starting to sound a bit too "out there" for me.

[GliderGuider]

48. He's not "deciding who lives or dies"

That seems a slightly hysterical point of view. The point is that we have lost the right to rein in government actions. I'd rather have Assange making things public rather than having decisions to kill people being made in secret and to be told that it's somehow "in my name".

If you don't believe that government is a conspiracy you haven't been reading the memos. Oh wait, you can't - they're all classified.

[Turborama]

51. "Who will die if he doesn't do this? Different people, that's all." That's what you said.

Therefore, if Julian decides to do it, different people will die.

I'd rather people didn't die prematurely due to decisions made which are out of their hands, period. I don't thin k what Assange is doing is going to stop decisions being made in secret to kill people.

I didn't say there isn't some conspiring done by governments behind the scenes, that is a common sense thing to assume. I don't know what "the government conspiracy" thing he discusses as if it's tangible is, though. Seems to me he's talking about some secret society like the "Illuminati". Is he on a mission to destroy the "Illuminati"?

[GliderGuider]

53. We have no way of knowing if anyone will die as a result of what Assange is doing. However...

We do know that people are dying because of what governments are doing. I'm willing to bet that, on balance, fewer people will die as a result of Assange's actions. Governments are the biggest culprits when people "die prematurely due to decisions made which are out of their hands". I'd like to see that stop, or at least slow down, and I think Assange's actions will move us in that direction.

Whjen I say "goverment conspiracy" I'm not referring to Illuminati secret society. It's simply what happens as a result of the natural convergence of interests that happen at the top of any power hierarchy. You would find P.D. Scott's book "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" interesting from this perspective:

Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics

Deep politics is defined by Scott as "all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged," (7). Further clarification of this view comes with his definition of deep political analysis: "looking beneath public formulations of policy issues to the bureaucratic, economic, and ultimately covert and criminal activities which underlie them," (10). Scott basically believes that much of American society exists in psychological denial concerning the Kennedy assassination, and that due to such feelings, citizens openly resist the further examination of the topic. He feels that it is his duty to himself, as well as to others, to engage in deep political analysis of such collective conscious-forming events, such as the JFK assassination, in order to bring society out of its denial. In his own words, "I propose that we should move toward a deeper Enmindment that respects the truths of darkness, as well as those of light," (22). Scott's view on the American political system is that it exists in this darkness, an area of intrigue and corruption. Further expansion of this view shows that he believes a more correct name for our political system would be a system of accommodations, one "which is characterized by alliances or symbiosis with lawless forces, which the system is nominally committed to eradicating," (312). These lawless forces, and their connections with the political system, are what his book proposes to flesh out with the JFK assassination as their center point.

[Turborama]

54. I wasn't asking about how you define "the government conspiracy"

I was asking about Assange's definition of this almost tangible 'thing' that he kept referring to.

I question authority and have a lot of issues with what governments get up to in their electorates names, but I also don't want to see civilization devolve into chaotic anarchy. Which, judging by the premise for this grand experiment of his you put forward below, sounds like Assange's end game.

[GliderGuider]

56. Regarding end games

I will admit to believing that a bit of anarchy is a good antidote to the cozy over-organization that governments and all power hierarchies seem to develop over time. It's like how you keep an office worker honest - by randomly sticking your head into their cubicle to see what they're up to. We are the government's bosses, not the other way around.

[No Elephants]

50. Sorry, that doesn't do it.

The issue is, does releasing this info help someone hury us.


We're told that the cable is about things like its ports, communication and transportation hubs. satellites (communication, spying) undersea cables (also communication). As I posted upthread, thia ia not rocket acience.

And, if a terrorist in fact cripples our communications and transpoertation, what difference does it make if America "saw" those things as critical or not? Does something hurt less or more simply because some bureaucrats "saw" it as critical or didn't? Some is either critical or it doesn't, regardless of whether it made someone's list.

The point is to hurt us, not to figure out what we think, correctly or not, will hurt us.

Besides, as we spy on everyone, everyone spies on us. Because I don't know something doesn't mean Assange is the only way anyone could possibly get their hands on this info. And, again, our government has told us Manning had clearance only for the secret classification, nothing higher. Unless we're being lied to, even our govt didn't view this info as especially sensitive.

Bear in mind, in 1999, despite attacks on a ship and plane hijackings in other countries, no one in our government thought airplane cockpits vulnerable or important enough to take even minimal precautions, like installing locking mechanisms on cockpit doors. Ten years, trillions of dollars and many, many American, Afghani, Iraqi and oher lives, limbs and minds later.....

So, I guess I am not overly impressed by the difference between what some bureaucrats think are critical targets and what terrorist can figure out for himself or herself. And, again, means of communication, transportation and receiving goods is not rocket science. I'm pretty sure those were known when the Romans cut off Masade.

[Turborama]

52. I think we can end this quite quickly. I am troubled by this release, you're not.

Is that a fair enough conclusion?

[GliderGuider]

39. Excellent! This is right in line with Assange's intended effect.

The point is not, and never has been, the specific contents of the leaks. There may be interesting stuff in there, but that is incidental to Assange's underlying goal.

That goal is to cause the governmental conspiracies of the USA and other nations to distrust their communication security, with the effect of making it progressively harder for cells within the conspiracies to communicate. The end result is to degrade the efficiency and power of the obscured top layer of the political/corporate/intelligence/criminal conspiracy (the layer referred to by author P.D. Scott as "Deep Politics") and ultimately permit some power to flow back to the governed.

Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; “To destroy this invisible government”

“To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove. Secondly we must develop a way of thinking about this behavior that is strong enough carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity. Finally must use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling, and effective action.”

Julian Assange, “State and Terrorist Conspiracies”

The piece of writing (via) which that quote introduces is intellectually substantial, but not all that difficult to read, so you might as well take a look at it yourself. Most of the news media seems to be losing their minds over Wikileaks without actually reading these essays, even though he describes the function and aims of an organization like Wikileaks in pretty straightforward terms. But, to summarize, he begins by describing a state like the US as essentially an authoritarian conspiracy, and then reasons that the practical strategy for combating that conspiracy is to degrade its ability to conspire, to hinder its ability to “think” as a conspiratorial mind. The metaphor of a computing network is mostly implicit, but utterly crucial: he seeks to oppose the power of the state by treating it like a computer and tossing sand in its diodes.

He begins by positing that conspiracy and authoritarianism go hand in hand, arguing that since authoritarianism produces resistance to itself — to the extent that its authoritarianism becomes generally known — it can only continue to exist and function by preventing its intentions (the authorship of its authority?) from being generally known. It inevitably becomes, he argues, a conspiracy:

Authoritarian regimes give rise to forces which oppose them by pushing against the individual and collective will to freedom, truth and self realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce resistance. Hence these plans are concealed by successful authoritarian powers. This is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.

The problem this creates for the government conspiracy then becomes the organizational problem it must solve: if the conspiracy must operate in secrecy, how is it to communicate, plan, make decisions, discipline itself, and transform itself to meet new challenges? The answer is: by controlling information flows. After all, if the organization has goals that can be articulated, articulating them openly exposes them to resistance. But at the same time, failing to articulate those goals to itself deprives the organization of its ability to process and advance them. Somewhere in the middle, for the authoritarian conspiracy, is the right balance of authority and conspiracy.

Finally, someone has figured out something effective to do against this clusterfuck that is destroying the planet.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. Oddly, I find myself thinking this makes sense. -nt

[CanSocDem]

65. Thank you...

....for keeping the spotlight on the real terrorists in this thread.

.

[suffragette]

59. The Guardian's investigations' editor has an interesting comment

on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates
Scroll to 1:43pm


1.43pm: David Leigh, the Guardian's investigations' editor who has done much of the reporting on the cables, responds to the Times story about "terror sites". He says the Guardian chose not to publish the story.

Live blog: Twitter

Strange to see the Times publishing a sensitive #Wikileaks cable which the #Guardian declined to do. Murdoch is helping terrorists?

[ProudDad]

62. WooHoo!

:woohoo: