30 June 2010

The DoD advisory document:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod_opsec.html

A sends:

Below is an email exchange between myself and Noam Chomsky, FYI and for you to publish on Cryptome if you choose, along the lines of the recent Wikileaks Case Thoughts.

The idea about an orchestrated implosion of Wikileaks to have a chilling effect is an interesting one - similar to my 'possible purpose #2' I think. As you can see my email was influenced by my reading of Cryptome and listening to the interview you did with Sibel Edmonds/Peter Collins. Note that this exchange came after the Mother Jones article which quoted Chomsky saying he knew nothing of him having a supposed advisory role to Wikileaks.

Does Cryptome have the DOD advisory document that Chomsky has referenced in interviews, which recommend periodic release of material on the JFK assassination? Guess I was hoping he might elaborate in his reply - I don't know of him discussing it in print or talks.

From:
To:        chomsky[at]mit.edu
Sent:        Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:41 PM
Subject:    Wikileaks

Noam,

I was wondering what you think of the ideas that have been going around for a while that "Wikileaks" is a fraud or is co-opted, and serves several possible purposes:

1. Wikileaks is a "honey pot" or false flag-type operation run by cooperating intelligence agencies to identify and manipulate people who have sensitive material.

2. Another purpose could be to distract the public. I'm thinking of the DOD document you've referenced which talks about periodically releasing information on JFK etc. The recent Iraq video is an interesting case. The major media have used it to reinforce propaganda: all commentary I've seen omits the illegal nature of the US presence in Iraq and presupposes the opposite, by way of focusing on rules of engagement, an unfortunate fog-of-war moment, etc. Plus, it's an incident from the previous administration. Major and fake-alternative media could have been counted on to react this way with little or no coercion, I think.

3. Contaminate the stream of legitimate leaks.

4. Raise money and feed ego.

5. Help the media to sell ads to go with the latest "shocking" leak story.

While the 38-minute version is an important counter to the usual military propaganda, what real damage has the video done?

Then we have John Young (of Cryptome.org, an older, more reputable website of a similar nature). I read with interest the email list published by Young on his site (http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm, http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak2.htm), which shows correspondence between Wikileaks founders and early supporters. Young left the group in 2007, and while he has made some statements supporting the group, he believes they resemble too closely those they seek to expose (commercial journalism, PR, government, spies).

"Secret keepers supply leaks to media to lure eyeballs for advertising hypnosis. Whether Wikileaks is witting or unwitting in boosting the leaks cartel of remunerative disclosure is not yet as clear as it is for commercial journalism ..." (John Young, http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-again.htm)

So, just curious as to whether you have been paying attention to them and how suspicious they make you.

To:
From:    chomsky[at] MIT.EDU
Subject:    Re: Wikileaks
Date:        April 10, 2010 10:51:57 PM EDT

Interesting.  Haven't heard these ideas, but then I haven't followed wikileaks much either, and never heard of John Young.  Doesn't sound impossible, but I don't know enough to have an opinion.

Noam