http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=16166
“Assange’s lawyer is a high profile establishment lawyer whose law firm works for the Rothschilds. It seems to me that this is proof enough that Assange is a Rothschild puppet and that Wikileaks is a Rothschild operation.”
— just a taste of the wacky stuff on “The Truth Seeker”.
A lot of people are peddling a lot of shit on WL; this conspiracy stuff is only one aspect. Israel Shamir, eg, has been described both as virulently anti-Semitic and on the payroll of (a supposedly Mossad-run) WikiLeaks. How would you square that?
More seriously … it seems like no document release, no matter how big and damning, can lead to the end of an American occupation or the collapse of a US administraion now cos govt, aided by much of US media, keeps the focus on the leaks themselves rather than the info obtained. That is cause to be very worried.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/16/wikileaks
If you read one US commentator on this whole subject, make it Glenn Greenwald. He is always on top of it, extremely astute and keeps track of a lot of other pundits and commentaries.
Greenwald: “Whatever else is true, the DOJ seems intent on pressuring Manning to incriminate Assange. It would be bizarre indeed to make a deal with the leaking government employee in order to incriminate the non-government-employee who merely publi…shed the classified information. But that may very well at least partially explain (though obviously not remotely justify) why the Government is holding Manning under such repressive conditions: in order to “induce” him to say what they need him to say in order to indict WikiLeaks and Assange.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/backissues/2010/12/in-solitary.html
And spare more than a thought for Bradley Manning. He has been living in the barbaric conditions of solitary confinement, cut off from everything, for seven months w/o charge.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1435_b_797188.html
Naomi Wolf points out that the Swedes’ great interest in bringing Assange to justice for “sex crimes” is completely inconsistent with their record on bringing rape and sex cases, which has been criticised as generally slack, even negligent. So either Assange was REALLY bad, bad enough for them to act, or there was a hidden agenda. No-brainer, of course.
Also, I haven’t seen any discussion among the Americans speculating (some enthusiastically) on what could be done with Assange that mentions the cryptographer aspect of his work. eg, the New Yorker article on him in May said Assange spent three months working to crack the encryption on the Apache shootings video. Wouldn’t that also be seen as a break-in of sorts? It certainly required determined effort to see something that had been strongly shielded from the public.
I just hope that in the coming months all media outlets drawing stories from the cables themselves back Manning and Assange in a real and practical way, cos the WikiLeaks releases have been, and will continue to be, a gold mine for them.










