We cannot determine the legitimacy of wikileaks but the materials' selection reveals
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
We have no way to determine whether WikiLeaks itself is genuine.
But we do have enough information in the nature of the leaks to reach some tentative conclusions.
The leaked material is almost certainly all genuine.
But it is highly selective, a crucial fact.
There is nothing terrible about America and its wars abroad, and any clear-thinking person knows perfectly well there are terrible tales to tell about wars abroad. That is the history of wars.
There is no dirt on Israel or Israeli-related matters.
Yet we know Israel is, realistically, today likely the world’s single greatest danger to international peace. It constantly practices assassinations and black operations, and almost every word coming from its foreign ministry is dishonest.
North Korea’s much-publicized attacks are almost insignificant compared to Israel’s attacks on innocent people in Southern Lebanon and Gaza and on the high seas.
Tons of American documents on Israel’s many insults, brutalities and non-cooperation must exist, but we see nothing.
There is tons of stuff about Iran, all of seeming to say that much of the world agrees Iran is a problem.
There are thousands of anecdotes by and about diplomats - all interesting, some fairly juicy, but none of them terribly damaging.
One must remember that an outfit like the U.S. State Department keeps countless millions of documents. There are unquestionably embarrassing opinions about anything you care to mention.
But there are far more consequential documents dealing with things like secret nuclear weapons and what happened to all the South African bombs, assassinations like that of Dr Kelly in Britain, and spying including the terrible case of Jonathon Pollard, the most compromising spy in American history and someone the Israeli government puts almost constant pressure on Washington to release, having made him a national hero with a holiday named for him.
One cannot help but think the leaks are serving Pentagon/Israeli interests.
And, of course, the classic technique for giving interest and believability to the material an agency does want to disseminate is to wrap it up in lots of other stuff that keeps people amused and fascinated.
WikiLeaks does not have to be aware of any of this. I don’t say for certain that they are not, but please remember the sensational case of the C.I.A. plant at the New York Times, Judith Miller. If the New York Times can be fooled – and they have been on numerous occasions – anyone can.
There have been many others. Robert Novak was used a number of times to disseminate material, as in the case of unmasked C.I. A. spy Valerie Plame. American journalism literally is saturated with such connections, some voluntary and malicious, some unknowing but still damaging.
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
We have no way to determine whether WikiLeaks itself is genuine.
But we do have enough information in the nature of the leaks to reach some tentative conclusions.
The leaked material is almost certainly all genuine.
But it is highly selective, a crucial fact.
There is nothing terrible about America and its wars abroad, and any clear-thinking person knows perfectly well there are terrible tales to tell about wars abroad. That is the history of wars.
There is no dirt on Israel or Israeli-related matters.
Yet we know Israel is, realistically, today likely the world’s single greatest danger to international peace. It constantly practices assassinations and black operations, and almost every word coming from its foreign ministry is dishonest.
North Korea’s much-publicized attacks are almost insignificant compared to Israel’s attacks on innocent people in Southern Lebanon and Gaza and on the high seas.
Tons of American documents on Israel’s many insults, brutalities and non-cooperation must exist, but we see nothing.
There is tons of stuff about Iran, all of seeming to say that much of the world agrees Iran is a problem.
There are thousands of anecdotes by and about diplomats - all interesting, some fairly juicy, but none of them terribly damaging.
One must remember that an outfit like the U.S. State Department keeps countless millions of documents. There are unquestionably embarrassing opinions about anything you care to mention.
But there are far more consequential documents dealing with things like secret nuclear weapons and what happened to all the South African bombs, assassinations like that of Dr Kelly in Britain, and spying including the terrible case of Jonathon Pollard, the most compromising spy in American history and someone the Israeli government puts almost constant pressure on Washington to release, having made him a national hero with a holiday named for him.
One cannot help but think the leaks are serving Pentagon/Israeli interests.
And, of course, the classic technique for giving interest and believability to the material an agency does want to disseminate is to wrap it up in lots of other stuff that keeps people amused and fascinated.
WikiLeaks does not have to be aware of any of this. I don’t say for certain that they are not, but please remember the sensational case of the C.I.A. plant at the New York Times, Judith Miller. If the New York Times can be fooled – and they have been on numerous occasions – anyone can.
There have been many others. Robert Novak was used a number of times to disseminate material, as in the case of unmasked C.I. A. spy Valerie Plame. American journalism literally is saturated with such connections, some voluntary and malicious, some unknowing but still damaging.
