Information Warfare/Wikileaks vs Pentagon (Greenwald)
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: Information Warfare/Wikileaks vs Pentagon (Greenwald)
Date: Mar 27, 2010 3:45 PM
ARTICLE BELOW
=========================
Yeah. It's pretty important to our
national security for everyone to
know that Lyme is a stealth disabler
and that LYMErix caused the immune
suppression that enabled the stealth
because now so many other countries
have a run on the stealth technology,
while the AMA still thinks Blumenthal
is a bad guy for suing the Yale
Lyme cryme gang.
SUNY-SB about 2-3 years ago said they
were destroying their old medical
library documents, while Ben Luft
protested saying he needed that older
data on Relapsing Fever:
http://www.actionlyme.org/RICOCHRON.htm
You remember Ben Luft:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19995919
"Nothing we know of kills all
the borrelia, and yet here is
another antibiotic that fails..."
and
http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/full/173/4/2660
"The reason Lyme is stealth (no antibodies)
and the Tuberculosis vaccines failed too,
is because OspA/fungal lipoproteins downregulate
the mechanisms by which a person creates antibodies."
Here's another one:
"The reason The Plague is so virulent
is that it does what Lyme and LYMErix
do, only better:"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19863438
"The reason the CDC does not want
to admit what Lyme is, is because
their own 1992 patents show they
knew in 1992 that the Dearborn crime
was a crime:"
http://www.actionlyme.org/CDCS_PARICIPATION_IN_LYME_CRIMES.htm
In 1990, the CDC said "Lyme
is a Relapsing Fever organism
and that the way to diagnose it
was to look for them NEW -IGM-type
antibodies in sequential Western
Blots, because that would mean the
borrelia are not dead:"
http://www.actionlyme.org/CDC_DOCUMENTS_1990.htm
The new standard says the opposite.
It says "You have to have Late
Lyme arthritis in a knee in order
to have 'a case' of Early Lyme."
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/ac/01/slides/3680s2.htm
SmithKline:
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/ac/01/slides/3680s2_02_lobet.pdf
"We think the adverse events
could be due to persisting
spirochetes, since that issue
has never been resolved."
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
=================================
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks/index.html
Saturday, Mar 27, 2010 08:29 EDT
The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters
By Glenn Greenwald
BBC's "The Culture Show"
Julian Assange, editor of WikiLeaks.
A newly leaked CIA report prepared earlier this month (.pdf) analyzes
how the U.S. Government can best manipulate public opinion in Germany
and France -- in order to ensure that those countries continue to
fight in Afghanistan. The Report celebrates the fact that the
governments of those two nations continue to fight the war in defiance
of overwhelming public opinion which opposes it -- so much for all the
recent veneration of "consent of the governed" -- and it notes that
this is possible due to lack of interest among their citizenry:
"Public Apathy Enables Leaders to Ignore Voters," proclaims the title
of one section.
But the Report also cites the "fall of the Dutch Government over its
troop commitment to Afghanistan" and worries that -- particularly if
the "bloody summer in Afghanistan" that many predict takes place --
what happened to the Dutch will spread as a result of the "fragility
of European support" for the war. As the truly creepy Report title
puts it, the CIA's concern is: "Why Counting on Apathy May Not Be
Enough":
The Report seeks to provide a back-up plan for "counting on apathy,"
and provides ways that the U.S. Government can manipulate public
opinion in these foreign countries. It explains that French sympathy
for Afghan refugees means that exploiting Afghan women as pro-war
messengers would be effective, while Germans would be more vulnerable
to a fear-mongering campaign (failure in Afghanistan means the
Terrorists will get you). The Report highlights the unique ability of
Barack Obama to sell war to European populations (click on images to
enlarge):
It's both interesting and revealing that the CIA sees Obama as a
valuable asset in putting a pretty face on our wars in the eyes of
foreign populations. It is odious -- though, of course, completely
unsurprising -- that the CIA plots ways to manipulate public opinion
in foreign countries in order to sustain support for our wars. Now
that this is a Democratic administration doing this and a Democratic
war at issue, I doubt many people will object to any of this. But
what is worth noting is how and why this classified Report was made
publicly available: because it was leaked to and then posted by
WikiLeaks.org, the site run by the non-profit group Sunshine Press,
that is devoted to exposing suppressed government and corporate
corruption by publicizing many of their most closely guarded secrets.
* * * * *
I spoke this morning at length with Julian Assange, the Australian
citizen who is WikiLeaks' Editor, regarding the increasingly
aggressive war being waged against WikiLeaks by numerous government
agencies, including the Pentagon. Over the past several years,
WikiLeaks -- which aptly calls itself "the intelligence agency of the
people" -- has obtained and then published a wide array of secret,
incriminating documents (similar to this CIA Report) that expose the
activities of numerous governments and corporations. Among many
others, they posted the Standard Operating Manual for Guantanamo,
documents showing how corrupt offshore loans precipitated the economic
collapse in Iceland, the notorious emails between climate scientists,
documents showing toxic dumping off the coast of Africa, and many
others. They have recently come into possession of classified videos
relating to civilian causalities under the command of Gen. David
Petraeus, as well as documentation relating to civilian-slaughtering
airstrikes in Afghanistan which the U.S. military had agreed to
release, only to change their mind.
All of this has made WikiLeaks an increasingly hated target of
numerous government and economic elites around the world, including
the U.S. Government. As The New York Times put it last week: "To the
list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the
Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information
and documents that governments and corporations around the world would
prefer to keep secret." In 2008, the U.S. Army Counterintelligence
Center prepared a secret report -- obtained and posted by WikiLeaks --
devoted to this website and detailing, in a section entitled "Is it
Free Speech or Illegal Speech?", ways it would seek to destroy the
organization. It discusses the possibility that, for some
governments, not merely contributing to WikiLeaks, but "even accessing
the website itself is a crime," and outlines its proposal for
WikiLeaks' destruction as follows (click on images to enlarge):
As the Pentagon report put it: "the governments of China, Israel,
North Korea, Russia, Vietnam and Zimbabwe" have all sought to block
access to or otherwise impede the operations of WikiLeaks, and the
U.S. Government now joins that illustrious list of transparency-loving
countries in targeting them.
It's not difficult to understand why the Pentagon wants to destroy
WikiLeaks. Here's how the Pentagon's report describes some of the
disclosures for which they are responsible:
The Pentagon report also claims that WikiLeaks has disclosed documents
that could expose U.S. military plans in Afghanistan and Iraq and
endanger the military mission, though its discussion is purely
hypothetical and no specifics are provided. Instead, the bulk of the
Pentagon report focuses on documents which embarrass the U.S.
Government: information which, as they put it, "could be manipulated
to provide biased news reports or be used for conducting propaganda,
disinformation, misinformation, perception management, or influence
operations against the U.S. Army by a variety of domestic and foreign
actors." In other words, the Pentagon is furious that this exposing
of its secrets might enable others to engage in exactly the type of
"perception management" which the aforementioned CIA Report proposes
the U.S. do with regard to the citizenry of our allied countries.
All of this is based in the same rationale invoked by President Obama
and the Democratic Congress when they re-wrote the Freedom of
Information Act last year in order to suppress America's torture
photos. It's the same rationale used by all governments to conceal
evidence of their wrongdoing: we need to suppress our activities for
your own good. WikiLeaks is devoted to subverting that mentality and,
relatively speaking, has been quite successful in doing so.
For that reason, numerous governments and private groups would like to
see them destroyed. Corporations have sued to have the site shut
down. And in addition to this 2008 Pentagon report, WikiLeaks has
acquired, though not yet posted, other U.S. Government classified
reports on its activities, including a U.S. Marine Intelligence Report
and an analysis prepared by the U.S. military base in Germany, both of
which speak of WikiLeaks as a threat. Moreover, the FBI has refused
to provide any information about its investigations and other
activities aimed at WikiLeaks, citing, in response to FOIA requests,
national security and other excuses for concealing it.
* * * * *
In my interview this morning with Assange, he described multiple
incidents that clearly signal a recent escalation of surveillance and
other forms of harassment directed at WikiLeaks. Many of those events
are detailed in an Editorial they just published, which, he explained,
was part of an effort to publicize what is being done to them in order
to provide some safety and buffer. A good summary of those events is
provided by Gawker. As but one disturbing incident: a volunteer, a
minor, who works with WikiLeaks was detained in Iceland last week and
questioned extensively about an incriminating video WikiLeaks
possesses relating to the actions of the U.S. military. During the
course of the interrogation, the WikiLeaks volunteer was not only
asked questions about the video based on non-public knowledge about
its contents (i.e., information which only the U.S. military would
have), but was also shown surveillance photos of Assange exiting a
recent WikiLeaks meeting regarding the imminent posting of documents
concerning the Pentagon.
That WikiLeaks is being targeted by the U.S. Government for
surveillance and disruption is beyond doubt. And it underscores how
vital their work is and why it's such a threat.
WikiLeaks editors, including Assagne, have spent substantial time of
late in Iceland because there is a pending bill in that country's
Parliament that would provide meaningful whistle blower protection for
what they do, far greater than exists anywhere else. Why is Iceland a
leading candidate to do that? Because, last year, that nation
suffered full-scale economic collapse. It was then revealed that
numerous nefarious causes (corrupt loans, off-shore transactions,
concealed warning signs) were hidden completely from the public and
even from policy-makers, preventing detection and avoidance. Worse,
most of Iceland's institutions -- from its media to its legislative
and regulatory bodies -- completely failed to penetrate this wall of
secrecy, allowing this corruption to fester until it brought about
full-scale financial ruin. As a result, Iceland has become very
receptive to the fact that the type of investigative exposure provided
by WikiLeaks is a vital national good, and there is real political
will to provide it with substantial protections.
If that doesn't sound familiar to Americans, it should. At exactly
the time when U.S. government secrecy is at an all-time high, the
institutions ostensibly responsible for investigation, oversight and
exposure have failed. The American media are largely co-opted, and
their few remaining vestiges of real investigative journalism are
crippled by financial constraints. The U.S. Congress is almost
entirely impotent at providing meaningful oversight and is, in any
event, controlled by the factions that maintain virtually complete
secrecy. As I've documented before, some alternative means of
investigative journalism have arisen -- such as the ACLU's tenacious
FOIA litigations to pry documents showing "War on Terror" abuses and
the reams of bloggers who sort through, analyze and publicize them --
but that's no match for the vast secrecy powers of the government and
private corporations.
The need for independent leaks and whistle-blowing exposures is
particularly acute now because, at exactly the same time that
investigative journalism has collapsed, public and private efforts to
manipulate public opinion have proliferated. This is exemplified by
the type of public opinion management campaign detailed by the above-
referenced CIA Report, the Pentagon's TV propaganda program exposed in
2008, and the ways in which private interests covertly pay and control
supposedly "independent political commentators" to participate in our
public debates and shape public opinion.
Last month, I was on a panel at the New School's Conference on how
information is controlled in a democracy, and also on the panel were
Daniel Ellsberg, who risked his liberty to leak the Pentagon Papers,
and The New York Times' David Barstow, who won the Pulitzer Prize for
exposing the Pentagon's propaganda program. Ellsberg described how
massive is the apparatus of secrecy in the National Security State,
and Barstow made the vital point -- which I summarized in the clip
below when speaking later that day at NYU Law School -- that the
public and private means for manipulating public opinion are rapidly
increasing at exactly the same time that checks on secrecy (such as
investigative journalism) are vanishing:
Aside from the handful of organizations (the ACLU, the NYT) with the
resources and will to engage in protracted FOIA litigations against
the government, one of the last avenues to uncover government and
other elite secrets are whistle blowers and organizations that enable
them. WikiLeaks is one of the world's most effective such groups, and
it's thus no surprise that they're under such sustained attacks.
This is how Assange put it to me this morning in explaining why he
believes his organization's activities are so vital and why he's
willing to make himself a target in order to do it:
This information has reform potential. And the information which
is concealed or suppressed is concealed or suppressed because the
people who know it best understand that it has the ability to reform.
So they engage in work to prevent that reform . . . .
There are reasons I do it that have to do with wanting to reform
civilization, and selectively targeting information will do that --
understanding that quality information is what every decision is based
on, and all the decisions taken together is what "civilization" is, so
if you want to improve civilization, you have to remove some of the
basic constraints, which is the quality of information that
civilization has at its disposal to make decisions. Of course,
there's a personal psychology to it, that I enjoy crushing bastards, I
like a good challenge, so do a lot of the other people involved in
WikiLeaks. We like the challenge.
The public and private organizations most eager to maintain complete
secrecy around what they do -- including numerous U.S. military and
intelligence agencies -- are obviously threatened by WikiLeaks'
activities, which is why they seek to harass and cripple them. There
are numerous ways one can support WikLeaks -- donations, volunteer
work, research, legal and technical assistance -- and that can be done
through their site. There aren't many groups more besieged, or doing
more important work, than they.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci
Mort Zuckerman
ARTICLE BELOW
=========================
and
http://www.actionlyme.org/CDCS_PARTICIPATION_IN_LYME_CRIMES.htm