Wikileaks is an Israeli intelligence operation, and thus any releases must serve their agenda. What do you think the spy ring was for?
"Exposed: Uncensored WikiLeaks cables posted to Web" September 01, 2011|Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press
Uncensored copies of WikiLeaks’ massive tome of U.S. State Department cables circulated freely Thursday across the Internet, leaving a whole new batch of U.S. sources vulnerable to embarrassment and potential retribution.
The United States, meanwhile, denied ever cooperating with the anti-secrecy group, and blasted Wikileaks for allegedly threatening national security and the safety of confidential informants.
Why would the U.S. even have to deny that?
WikiLeaks has blamed Britain’s the Guardian newspaper for the breach, saying that an investigative journalist had revealed the password needed to unlock the files in a book published earlier this year.
Guardian journalists countered that it was sloppy security at Julian Assange’s anti-secrecy website which helped expose the cables to the world.
In a 1,600-word-long editorial posted to the Internet, WikiLeaks accused the Guardian’s investigative reporter David Leigh of betrayal, saying that his disclosure had jeopardized months of “careful work’’ that WikiLeaks had undertaken to redact and publish the cables.
“Revolutions and reforms are in danger of being lost as the unpublished cables spread to intelligence contractors and governments before the public,’’ WikiLeaks said in its statement.
Leigh and the Guardian both denied wrongdoing, and the exact sequence of events WikiLeaks was referring to remained clouded in confusion and recriminations.
And reading the newspaper isn't clearing it up.
It has long been known that WikiLeaks lost control of the raw cables even before they were published. One copy of the secret documents leaked to The New York Times in the fall of 2010, and other media organizations, including The Associated Press, have since received copies independently of WikiLeaks.
But never before has the entire catalog of unredacted cables made its way to the Web.
Until recently, WikiLeaks released relatively small batches of files to its partner organizations — dozens of international media and human rights groups — so they could remove information which could put innocent people in jeopardy. Only then were the files posted online.
But with the unredacted cables now sloshing around in the public domain, all that work has effectively been thrown out the window.
In its statement, WikiLeaks laid the blame on the Guardian and an unnamed “German individual.’’
An unnamed German individual?
--more--"
Related: WikiLeaks Is Israel
ADL: Wikileaks Vital to Israel's Intelligence Program
Hidden Intelligence Operation Behind the Wikileaks Release of “Secret” Documents?
CIA, Mossad and Soros behind Wikileaks
The fact that the agenda-pushing MSM newspapers are controlled by Zionist and intelligence interests darn near confirms the fact.
"WikiLeaks posts entire State Department archive, names included" September 03, 2011|By Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press
LONDON - WikiLeaks disclosed its entire archive of US State Department cables yesterday, much if not all of it uncensored - a move that drew stinging condemnation from major newspapers that in the past collaborated with the antisecrecy group’s efforts to expose corruption and double-dealing.
So Wikileaks credibility is to be bolstered by this fake fight with the mouthpiece media?
Many media outlets previously had access to all or part of the uncensored files. But WikiLeaks’ decision to post the 251,287 cables on its website makes potentially sensitive diplomatic sources available to anyone, anywhere. American officials have warned that the disclosures could jeopardize vulnerable people such as opposition figures.
In other words, our spies have been exposed.
A joint statement published on the Guardian’s website said that the British publication and its international counterparts - The New York Times, France’s Le Monde, Germany’s Der Spiegel, and Spain’s El Pais - “deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted State Department cables.’’
Previously, international media outlets - and WikiLeaks itself - had redacted the names of potentially vulnerable sources, although some specialists warned that even people whose names had been kept out of the cables were still at risk. But now many, and possibly even all, of the cables posted to the WikiLeaks website carry unredacted names.
It's Israel's way of saying do what we want to the U.S.
There is a debate over what kind of effect that will have.
Former US State Department official P.J. Crowley warned that the new release could be used to intimidate activists. Crowley said that “any autocratic security service worth its salt’’ probably already would have the complete archive, but that fresh releases mean that any intelligence agency that did not “will have it in short order.’’
On Twitter, WikiLeaks suggested that it had no choice but to publish the archive because copies were circulating online following a security breach.
WikiLeaks has blamed the Guardian for the blunder, pointing out that a sensitive password used to decrypt the files was published in a book put out by David Leigh, one of the paper’s investigative reporters and a collaborator-turned-critic of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Guardian journalists have suggested that the real problem was that WikiLeaks posted the encrypted file to the Web by accident and that Assange never changed the password.
--more--"
"WikiLeaks' Assange accuses UK paper of negligence" by David Rising Associated Press / September 6, 2011
BERLIN—WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange blasted the Guardian on Tuesday, saying the British paper's "negligence" in publishing an encryption key to uncensored files forced his organization's hand in publishing the secret U.S. diplomatic memos.
It was Assange's first public comments since WikiLeaks disclosed its entire archive of U.S. State Department cables last week. The United States has fiercely criticized the move, saying it could endanger the lives of the sources named in the cables, including opposition figures or human rights advocates....
All just before the vote on Palestinian statehood at the U.N.?
--more--"
