Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

WikiLeaks sets the stage for the ‘No Send List’

By Richard K. Moore | Aletho News | December 17, 2010

Hillary Clinton has called WikiLeaks “an attack on the international community”. Coming from her, we must assume that is meant in all seriousness. We must compare it to what we saw on our screens on 9/11: “America under attack”.

When a Secretary of State announces that we are ‘under attack’, it follows without saying that we can expect some kind of response to that attack. Indeed the word ‘attack’ is more or less reserved for occasions where a response is planned. Otherwise the statement would be interpreted as reflecting weakness and impotence.

When America was ‘under attack’, we got the Patriot Act domestically, and never-ending war internationally — the Constitution was shredded along with international law. That was a very big response. What kind of response can we expect when the ‘international community’ is declared to be ‘under attack’, because a website has revealed a few relatively harmless secrets?

If the State Department really felt that the WikiLeaks operation was a serious threat to national security, or even a serious embarrassment politically, they could have shut it down at any time. They have their ways. And they could have ‘gotten to’ Assange in one way or another, as they got to David Kelly, who really was a threat, with his testimony that WMDs did not exists, testimony that was never heard about again, after he ‘committed suicide’.

Instead, with WikiLeaks, we have Assange at large flaunting it, and we see the leaks being published in the mainstream media, both in print and online, conveniently indexed. What’s wrong with this picture? If the leaks are harmful, why are they doing everything they can to make sure everyone, including any ‘potential terrorists’, sees them?

The WikiLeaks affair has become a major dramatic story line on the stage of the global mass media. It’s very much like the launch of a new television series. We’ve got a dramatic personality at the center, seen by some as a super hero and others as a super demon, who is able to reveal a million secrets at a single bound. We’ve got increasing dramatic tension, as the attack alarms ring, the secrets keep coming out, and… nothing decisive is being done. Something must be done! That’s clearly where this story line is leading.

By doing nothing decisive, and with Assange out on bail, the message between the lines is that new legislation is needed. Perhaps new legislation is already being discussed; I haven’t been following that part of the story. But as the dramatic tension mounts in the media, so that it becomes ‘obvious’ that something must be done, we can be sure we will end up with a draconian Cyber Terrorism Act, akin to the Domestic Terrorism Act.

Clearly, the provisions of this act will be very far-reaching. That has been the consistent pattern with each of our various ‘terrorism’ acts. Currently, anyone can be arbitrarily declared a domestic terrorist, and be locked up forever incommunicado. That hasn’t been happening on any significant scale, yet, but the provisions are that far reaching.

Similarly, in a Cyber Terrorism Act, we’ll get a provision that any website can be arbitrarily declared ‘in aid of terrorism’, closed down, and anyone involved with it can be treated as a domestic terrorist. The Act will be that far-reaching, but we probably won’t see a lot of such closures happening. Instead, we’ll get hit in more subtle ways. Websites will simply be seized, without fanfare, and that’s already been happening, under the logo of Homeland Security.

I think we can take a clue from the TSA experience at airports, as regards what we can expect at ‘net ports’. Consider, for example, the ‘no fly’ list. If you’re on the list, you can’t fly, they don’t give you any reasons, and they even seem to flaunt how arbitrary the list is. They are arbitrarily restricting your ability to connect with people face to face.

Similarly, from what might be called the Communications Security Administration (CSA), we can expect a ‘no send’ list. If you’re on the list, you can’t send or post messages, and no reasons will be given. They will be arbitrarily restricting your ability to connect with people remotely. Already, I’ve been encountering problems with sending, where my IP address has been mysteriously tagged as a spam source, and my ISP claimed to have no explanation.

Consider also the invasive screening process at airports. Everyone is treated as a potential terrorist, until they pass the invasive screening process. Similarly, every message anyone tries to send will be treated as a ‘potential cyber threat’, until it passes an invasive ‘threat filter’. Google is already deploying such a filter, and calling it a spam filter. Currently, with manual intervention, you can rescue a message from the filter. The CSA’s filter will simply delete your message, end of story, before it even gets to your ISP.

Air travel and the Internet have been the ‘great global connectors’, of people and of ideas. The thrust of ‘security’ measures has had little to do with terrorism, and everything to do with making ‘connection’ more and more difficult. Same story when you try to cross a border in your car.

WikiLeaks is indeed the 9/11 of the Internet. The leaks themselves are an inside job, just like the Twin Towers, with the leaks carefully selected to avoid anything really damaging, or anything embarrassing to Israel. And just as they didn’t scramble the interceptors, they didn’t close down the WikiLeaks site. They let both events play out, down on Highway 61, and then they splashed them all over the media. Such things are always done for a purpose.

Richard K. Moore can be contacted at rkm@quaylargo.com

December 17, 2010 - Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular

22 Comments »

  1. YUP…I agree, the big sguash is here.
    I wonder how long this site and COTO and so many others will fair?

    We have been on alert at COTO for the last couple months…prep for an analog existance.
    Go to CB radio…get connected quick, not much time left.
    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 17, 2010 | Reply

    • Right on. It is sickening to listen to this piss-in-their-pants dweebs. I hope they don’t gum up the works with their putrid souls. There is a lot of work to do. Manning and Assange have been amazing, especially compared to these losers.

      Like

      timothy price's avatar Comment by timothy price | December 17, 2010 | Reply

  2. Gutless wonders! Defeatism is written all over these attacks on Wikileaks.

    We should never have dared to get the truth about shooting down of the Reuters people. We should never have found out about the way American “diplomacy” chokes off efforts to hold them accountable.

    Crawl in your holes now, why don’t you?

    Like

    Linda Jansen's avatar Comment by Linda Jansen | December 17, 2010 | Reply

  3. With a Talmudic Jew named Julius Genachowski being nominated to head the FCC, we can rest assured that it won’t be long before the web has limited access to all.

    The real terror potential of the web is to Jews and Israel having the Goy masses begin to wake up to their racket and their agenda.
    This is a no no!

    Like

    Dave's avatar Comment by Dave | December 17, 2010 | Reply

  4. Then prepare. Spread all you can, and stash all the files you can. There will be an underground net. prepare for it.

    Like

    Avery's avatar Comment by Avery | December 17, 2010 | Reply

  5. I suggest we all get used to the number: 404

    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 17, 2010 | Reply

  6. […] via WikiLeaks sets the stage for the ‘No Send List’ « Aletho News. […]

    Like

    Pingback by WikiLeaks sets the stage for the ‘No Send List’ « Aletho News | Pastoral Musings | December 17, 2010 | Reply

  7. cia running a wikileaks server?

    Comment
    byu/tubbubbles from discussion
    inpolitics

    suggest anything?

    Like

    lionide's avatar Comment by lionide | December 18, 2010 | Reply

  8. Lionide,

    Yes, it suggests, a “honeypot”, just like one of the commentors mentioned.
    What would anyone expect?
    Of course the intel agencies would set up their own mirrors and monitor who came to see.
    Like the commentator mentioned–hardly brilliant, but simply proccedure by this time.

    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 18, 2010 | Reply

  9. If Wikileaks had been around when 911 happened, we probably wouldn’t have invaded Iraq under the hubris of get Sadaam he has WMD’s and we could have saved many American lives…This in and of itself related to future invasions could be a necessary and sufficient condition for it to survive. In this context, I would be curious if anyones’ definition of terrorist doesn’t include “one who takes American lives”, if no ones’ definition excludes this item, then can anyone say Bush/Cheyney/Rumsfeld aren’t terrorists?

    Like

    Gerald Bertholl's avatar Comment by Gerald Bertholl | December 19, 2010 | Reply

    • I have to disagree, i see nothing in the Wikileaks documents that are pro war….Additionally, there is more than a necessary and sufficient condition to show that Cheyney in particular pressured the intelligence community to give him reasons for the invasion. It was the course of action and just needed some reason to justify same. In addition, almost every credible media account which i have seen, portrays the failure of the media to show what was really going on, i.e. the White House was creating the environment it wanted for invasion……

      Like

      Gerald Bertholl's avatar Comment by Gerald Bertholl | December 20, 2010 | Reply

      • Because Wikileaks shows what our country is doing torture, lies, invasions based upon wishes, this doesn’t mean they are pro war. It is just the opposite. They are exposing the lies our government tells us. Based upon your logic, Daniel Ellsberg was pro war by exposing the Pentagon lies in Vietnam?

        Like

        Gerald Bertholl's avatar Comment by Gerald Bertholl | December 20, 2010 | Reply

        • well, i guess we will have to agree to disagree…….

          Like

          Gerald Bertholl's avatar Comment by Gerald Bertholl | December 20, 2010 | Reply

  10. Gerald Bertholl,

    Yes, Bush/Cheyney/Rumsfeld are certainly terrorists and war criminals.
    Indictments are surely in order.

    If the US Grand Jury system hadn’t been subverted the citizens could take care of this themselves. But in Amerika Inc all we have left is a fascist state…headed by war criminals.
    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 19, 2010 | Reply

  11. Nothing is determined, all is in flux.
    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 20, 2010 | Reply

  12. “Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government “enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.” (emphasis added)

    “Quite true. But by definition, a covert operation always pretends to be something it is not, and never claims to be what it is.”~Julie Lévesque
    ********
    I must interject here that this last statement is a rhetorical circular transport; By the same token, someone telling the truth would say the exact same thing. This is the self canceling agumentum used as subtle suggestion while having an irrational basis.

    It is certainly true that a liar would lie to deny an assertion. It is equally true that an innocent person would tell the truth of his innocence. This is important to note, because it is a psychological tactic being used to build a case against wikileaks, which so far has only had assertions based on guilt by association.
    Some of them one party removed associations. Which is again, only assertives , not substantial proofs.

    That wikileaks “brings to mind” the work of Sunstein, is certainly a reasonable basis for suspicion, but suspicion is the very topic of this paper, and we are seeking some substantial hook that can be reasonably determined as a proof.

    So far we are left with theory. It has substantial points as such, but there is nothing to bring to court, as it were.~ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 20, 2010 | Reply

  13. . All one has to do is take in any MSM broadcast. The situation is far from ‘theoretical’.~Aletho

    An MSM broadcast about the leaks are not the leaks, they are spin on the leaks.

    I have my suspicions about Assange. But I also have my suspicions that he is being used, not for his own purposes, but for the elites.

    You can interpret him ensconced in that mansion as a deal of opulence–or being held in the belly of the beast.

    I submit that you “know” more than you know.
    I would fear having you as a judge in my case.
    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 20, 2010 | Reply

  14. Fine Aletho,

    “It is what it is” as a prejudgment for you.

    You may be absolutely right. But I see all of your ‘proofs’ as circumstantial at this point. And I will withhold judgement until more is revealed.
    Sorry to hang your jury.
    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 20, 2010 | Reply

  15. WRONG…ah, yes, caps win the argument everytime…Lol

    The ball is still in play, whether you admit it or not.
    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 20, 2010 | Reply

  16. The Wikileaks this week have continued to trickle out, as every government in the world closes ranks against the possibility of transparency and governments that are accountable to their citizens.

    The media isn’t reporting on most of the cables, so take a look and break the information blockade yourself: http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html

    When I did, I ran into gems like this cable from 2007 requesting that the US government intervene on the Monsanto corporation’s behalf by “retaliating” against EU countries that regulate genetically-modified foods “in the common interest.” The US ambassador to France writes like one of Monsanto’s paid PR specialists: “Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices”

    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 22, 2010 | Reply

    • Your stubborn authoritarian attitude is the bore.

      You don’t like dissent, that much is obvious.

      You can win your argument any time, ban me.
      ww

      Like

      hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 22, 2010 | Reply

  17. If it’s a duplicate I apologise for that.
    ww

    Like

    hybridrogue1's avatar Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 22, 2010 | Reply


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

« Previous | Next »