You are hereBlogs / jimstaro's blog / Pentagon Manhunt: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
Pentagon Manhunt: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
They're worried about 'serious damage to national security'?, what freakin world have these folks been living in in the past decade, we've created so much hatred 'national security' won't be 'secure' for decades!! It's not like those who've been at the other end of our reign of terrorism haven't a clue!!
Pentagon Manhunt: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
Anxious that Wikileaks may be on the verge of publishing a batch of secret State Department cables, investigators are desperately searching for founder Julian Assange. Philip Shenon reports. Plus, Daniel Ellsberg tells The Daily Beast: "Assange is in Danger."
(This story has been updated to reflect new developments on Assange's whereabouts, including the cancelation of a scheduled appearance in Las Vegas.)
Pentagon investigators are trying to determine the whereabouts of the Australian-born founder of the secretive website Wikileaks for fear that he may be about to publish a huge cache of classified State Department cables that, if made public, could do serious damage to national security, government officials tell The Daily Beast.
The officials acknowledge that even if they found the website founder, Julian Assange, it is not clear what they could do to block publication of the cables on Wikileaks, which is nominally based on a server in Sweden and bills itself as a champion of whistleblowers. Continued
- jimstaro's blog
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Quote: "They're worried about 'serious damage to national security'?, what freakin world have these folks been living in in the past decade, we've created so much hatred 'national security' won't be 'secure' for decades!! It's not like those who've been at the other end of our reign of terrorism haven't a clue!!"
That's a bunch more [scaremongering] bla bla ....
Most, if not all, attacks on the US in the US will be like 9/11, the 1995 OKC bombing, the 1993 WTC bombing, the Gulf of Tonkin bit of history, the JFK assassination, the sinking of a USN ship that caused the public in the US to support war on the Philippines in the 1890s and which started the Spanish-American War, and maybe other examples; FALSE FLAG!
Hardly any, if any at all, of true Iraqis and Afghans will want to commit attacks on the US in the US. What they want is for the foreign forces criminally, fatally, destructively, ... occupying their countries to GET OUT and STAY OUT, as well as to provide reparations.
They know the US is the military superpower of this planet and also know that if they attacked the US in the US, then this would surely be learned, that is, the US would surely learn who the "culprits" were and this could mean great danger, ... happening to their countries AGAIN. They definitely would NOT want that to happen and would avoid being the cause of it happening.
They might attack US forces or bases in Central Asia, once the foreign forces are withdrawn from their countries, f.e.; but they would not likely try to attack the US in the US. And attacking US bases in such locations as Central Asia is not a matter of US national security. Those places are NOT part of the US and the US is criminally there to begin with; and that crime is a serious national security issue.
The CIA might covertly get some persons who are originally of those countries to unwittingly act as patsies for attacks in the US that the US govt would then claim were committed by terrorists harbored in and/or sent from Afghanistan and/or Iraq. It's a covert M.O. of the CIA. But it's not likely that attacks in the US would be committed by other people of these countries, or any other(s) seeking revenge for what the US-led war criminals did to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
They'll certainly and understandably will be VERY angry at the US and its criminal war allies for a very LONG time, but it's not likely that they'd risk the strongly possible consequences of striking the US in the US out of revenge.
They do know that the wars on [both] Afghanistan and Iraq, instead of only the one on Iraq, were based on LIES. Many surely also realize that 9/11 did NOT happen according to the "official story" the US govt elites cooked up a lot of. So they know what attacking the US in the US could mean for their countries.
Some or many of them will understandably and forgivably hate the US and its war-criminal allies, but they will not likely act out this hatred with haste. They know what the consequences could, and too likely would, be.
The present is already apocalyptic for them. Why would they want apocalypse to return again once the first instance has ended, a serious part of the first instance anyway? Only dumb animals would risk causing that to happen.
Contrary to a lot of Americans or westerners who write and/or speak the scaremongering line, I don't think of or treat the so-called future terrorists or revenge seekers as if they are just dumb animals. People who do that might not do it intentionally, but it's nevertheless what they're actually doing with this scaremongering nonsense. There are plenty of dumb animals in the US military and politics, f.e., but the Afghans and Iraqis are not dumb animals.
Quote: "Pentagon investigators are trying to determine the whereabouts of the Australian-born founder of the secretive website Wikileaks for fear that he may be about to publish a huge cache of classified State Department cables that, if made public, could do serious damage to national security, government officials tell The Daily Beast".
The only issue for US national security in this are the Pentagon LIES, this pathology of repeatedly and grotesquely lying. And what's all of this repetitive lying for, if not extremely criminal COVER-UP of extreme crimes of the US; and that, my friends, is HIGH TREASON.
Now if that isn't a serious national security issue for the US, then forget you have ever heard or read about national security pertaining to the US.
The only danger is NOT getting this information from Wikileaks and which obviously is very important for us all to KNOW ABOUT.
People who disagree are dumb animals wanting to be lead BLINDLY with great malevolance.
The Pentagon is criminal as HELL. It has NO credibility and deserves NO respect.
Samuel P. Jacobs interviewed Dan Ellsberg and this is HIGHLY favourable for Julian Assange, who's credibly in danger and who definitely should put out the cables received, if he indeed received them anyway. Assuming he did, he should only withhold a tiny amount that's really important for US national security, but this also is only if there is any such content in the diplomatic cables. Daniel Ellsberg says that there's likely less than 1% and surely no more than 1% of the content of the cables that [might] be vital for US natonal security, and he concludes by saying that if Julian Assange is in possession of the alleged copies of these cables and putting them out is a question of "all or none" being put out, then all really need to be put out.
And Daniel Ellsberg is clearly right.
"Daniel Ellsberg: Wikileaks' Julian Assange 'in Danger'", June 11, 2010
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-11/daniel-ellsber...
Quote: "American officials would not discuss the methods being used to find Assange, nor would they say if they had information to suggest where he is now. "We'd like to know where he is; we'd like his cooperation in this," one U.S. official said of Assange".
What kind of cooperation? To criminally hand over the apparently top secret data or information before making it available to the public? Of course. And if that fails, then the cooperation will take on a different "flavor", such as to just have him under US thug control so that he could then be killed and left to be found "mysteriously" dead, perhaps.
That's not necessarily the outcome that Daniel Ellsberg speaks of in the interview he provided to The Daily Beast and which is linked in my above post, but he also didn't dismiss the possibility of Assange being killed, either. Quite to the contrary, he spoke of this possibility, but also spoke of the outcome possibly being to just "beat up" Assange, badly enough.
In terms of the possibility of death, Dan Ellsberg refers to "President" Obama having declared that Americans overseas can be killed when suspected of terrorism, without any questions asked, and, well, Julian Assange doesn't even have the protection afforded by US citizenship; as little as that protection evidently is.
Quote: "He was scheduled to speak Friday in Las Vegas at ... (snipped). But the group’s executive director, Mark Horvit, tells The Daily Beast that Assange canceled the appearance — ... (snipped) — within the last several days as a result of unspecificed “security concerns.” Horvit said he communicated with Assange through email and did not know where he might be".
That's a good answer, and Horvit better keep his mouth shut if he does know where Assange is!
Quote: "Last week, Assange was scheduled to join famed Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg for a talk at New York's Personal Democracy Forum. Assange appeared via Skype from Australia instead, saying lawyers recommended he not return to the United States".
Common sense should suffice. This is no time to be naive!
Julian Assange's work is VERY important, vital. See the interview that Daniel Ellsberg provided to The Daily Beast linked in my above post.
Quote: "“It looks like they’re playing some sort of semantic games,” one American official said of Wikileaks. “They may not have 260,000 cables, but they’ve probably got enough cables to make trouble.”".
That's hilarious, in a dark way, coming from a govt as hellbent criminal and rogue as the US govt is.
Such trouble is great for [democracy] and real national security! If a reader doesn't believe me, then the person should read the interview with Daniel Ellsberg, who gets a 5 of 5 star review from this critic for all of his answers in the interview.