Gonzalo Lira http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/ with a balanced assessment of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I’m guessing Part II won’t be so balanced. I already see his point about the new McCarthyism. Let’s see what our deep Republican thinkers have to say about Julian Assange. Since Republicans are the keepers of Liberty, Truth and Freedom, I’m sure they are suportive of Mr. Assange.
“Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” – Mike Huckabee
“Assange is not a ‘journalist,’ any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a ‘journalist.’ He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?” – Sarah Palin
These fascists are two of the leading Republican candidates for President in 2012. Hitler was elected to office too.
Let’s see what an American who REALLY believes in the truth has to say about Wikileaks:
“In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often “official” government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.” - Ron Paul
The Case of Wikileaks, Part I—The Hacker’s Treehouse
This is the first of a two-part examination of Wikileaks. Part II, “The New McCarthyism” will be posted on Thursday morning.
GL.
It’s only when you poke the beast that you get a sense of its true nature.
The American government, media, and corporate establishment are all in a tizzy over the latest poke from Wikileaks:
The “whistleblowing” site (it really isn’t, but I’ll get to that in a minute) is releasing excerpts from a cache of some 250,000 diplomatic cables and other documents. These cables were sent from various American embassies back to the State Department between 1966 and 2010. The leaks have been dripping out since November 28, revealing a whole host of tawdry but so far trivial tidbits of American diplomatic behavior.
None of the “secrets” revealed by Wikileaks are really secrets: They’re mostly confidential appraisals of the U.S.’s allies and rivals; much of it is gossip, or merely pedestrian—demonstrably so:
Of the 251,287 documents Wikileaks has obtained, 134,000 are outright unclassified; 102,000 are classified “confidential”; and 15,652 are classified as “secret”. Source is linked here, confirmation is linked here.
None of these documents are classified “top secret” or higher—anyone claiming that they are “top secret” or that they “put lives in danger” is at best exaggerating, and at worst lying.
The reason none of the data Wikileaks acquired was “top secret” or higher in its classification is because the data in question was accessed through the SIPRNet system (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) that the U.S. government has set up. This is a sort of parallel internet for the Department of Defense and the State Department. Three million people have access to SIPRNet, which by design handles at most “secret” documents. Material rated “top secret” or higher in the classification scale use a completely different system, accessed by far fewer individuals.
So the latest Wikileaks “revelations” are actually not particularly important, in and of themselves.
Smokey says:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
20
7th December 2010 at 9:42 pm
Freesmith says:
“Bradley Manning is the true hero of this entire situation—and he will likely spend the rest of his life in prison: A fate which should haunt every American’s conscience.”
To Gonzalo Lira, Private Manning is someone with whom he would like to share a foxhole.
Obviously, there should be no inviolate state or defense secrets and everybody should be able to decide on their own and for their own reasons what should be secret and what should be revealed.
Anything else is fascist tyranny – right?
I’m certain that everyone who reads this practices that kind of openness in his personal business, and knows that government must do the same. Privacy is just a bourgeois concept promoted by the imperialist ruling class and the banksters.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
7th December 2010 at 10:10 pm
Yojimbo says:
Admin et al
The system is like a very tall stool with many towers of cans stacked on it, one can on top of the next. The stool (the system) is teetering because the legs have become rotted and eaten away. The Oligarchy and Powers That Be know that the stool is teetering, and want the cans to fall one at a time, slowly, in a predescribed way, so that they can maximize their profit taking as each can comes down.
Julian Assange is saying, “Fuck the slow, controlled collapse!”, and is hitting the legs so that the collapse comes down in a way that cannot be controlled, manipulated, or gamed. The faster and less controlled the collapse is, the better off the average person is, and the worse off the banksters and oligarchy are. If the collapse had happened this way initially in 2008, the banks would be bankrupt and there would have been no bailouts, bonuses, and grift, and the derivatives would have vanished.
I say give the guy a bat and let him whack at the system as much as he can. He and Bradley Manning are heroes in my book.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
7th December 2010 at 10:43 pm
LLPOH says:
Yojimbo – I think you are giving Assange way too much credit. He is a fucking hacker using up his fifteen minutes of fame. There isn’t an altruistic bone in his body.
I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other about what he has done, but I lean more toward Smokey’s position than yours, but am still open to arguments either way.
With regard to Bradley Manning, he can rot in jail for life, and probably will. Military personnel do not get a pass when they release confidential info.
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
9
7th December 2010 at 10:53 pm
Administrator says:
Bradley Manning for President 2012.
Julian Assange for Secretary of State
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
4
7th December 2010 at 11:01 pm
Jackson says:
First, WTF is wrong with you for using Joe McCarthy’s name to characterize baseless name callers and finger pointers. Read The Venona Secrets and other related books. You’ll discover that Joe McCarthy was oh so right but that he far, far underestimated the treasonous element in this country.
Only those who love the State and support its every action no matter how criminal or heinous can suggest Bradley Manning be executed. Those who love America, the Constitution, and our country’s promises to its citizens should revere Manning as a great patriot. Americans should know everything their elected representatives say and do. Americans should hold their leaders to the highest standards. Any person who acts to reveal perfidious politicians and their minions should be praised. If, those patriots, like Manning, have suffered because of their love of country, they should be sanctified.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
6
7th December 2010 at 11:02 pm
Steve Hogan says:
I never heard about the Palin leak until reading this. If true, the author certainly has a point. Granted, Palin is a media whore and an individual that probably hasn’t conjured up an original thought in her life, but she shouldn’t have personal information revealed without her consent.
As for WikiLeaks in general, I’m less concerned about Assange’s motivations or his dysfunctional childhood. If the leaks reveal a corrupt and criminal government for the public to see, the organization is a force for positive change. May others get the nerve to expose government malfeasance.
Smokey, I’m curious as to why you feel Manning is a traitor. Is it because he leaked documents or because it revealed the true nature of what our government is doing in our name? If Manning is a traitor for whistle-blowing, what is your opinion of officials that lie us into war, kill innocent civilians that are no threat to us, squander trillions of dollars in pointless occupations, torture people (all of whom are held without due process, and some of whom were released because there was no evidence against them), and turn our country into a police state? Are they traitors too? Care to name names? I’ve got a list, and it’s pages long.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
3
7th December 2010 at 11:03 pm
Administrator says:
No need for a foxhole if your leaders don’t lie about WMD and send Americans to their death for a false cause, while Congress abdicates their responsibility to declare war.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:05 pm
LLPOH says:
Steve – military personnel cannot be allowed to leak information. It simply cannot be allowed. Where would it end? This secret is ok to leak, but not that one. Did the public have a right to the info he leaked? Perhaps. But military personnel cannot be allowed to leak classified documents. Hasta la vista, Private.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
7th December 2010 at 11:16 pm
Freesmith says:
If someone hacks into your private emails, can I publish them on the internet?
I have my reasons, and they’re real good.
And you shouldn’t care, unless you have something to hide. That’s the only reason people want to keep secrets, you know.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
7th December 2010 at 11:17 pm
Administrator says:
Another Republican Presidential contender fascist speaks:
Newt Gingrich on “Fox News Sunday” told host Chris Wallace that Julian Assange is a terrorist since he is engaging in information warfare against the United States and putting our soldiers in harm’s way.
Who won’t be a terrorist once the Republicans have complete control of government again?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:19 pm
Administrator says:
I think Nixon called Woodward & Bernstein terrorists too.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:20 pm
Administrator says:
” Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. ”
George Orwell
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:22 pm
Administrator says:
” Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”
George Orwell
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:23 pm
Administrator says:
” If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. ”
George Orwell
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:25 pm
Administrator says:
” Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. ”
George Orwell
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:27 pm
Freesmith says:
Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time Magazine, admitted on CNN that the WiliLeaks material that his magazine published hurt American national security. Repeat: He admitted it.
But he said that American national security wasn’t his concern.
Nice. Time Magazine is neutral about the security of America.
No wonder circulation is soaring, Mr. Stengel.
And the New York Times, which refused to publish the global warming emails that revealed collusion to shape the facts to suit the theory because the emails were “private,” had no hesitation about publishing the stolen WikiLeaks material.
No wonder circulation is soaring, Mr. Sulzberger.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
11
7th December 2010 at 11:27 pm
LLPOH says:
Admin – what is your point? You want to fry him or don’t you? Orwell is too deep for me.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:28 pm
Steve Hogan says:
LLPOH,
I was an officer in the US Navy. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I actually remember raising my right hand and saying the words…and meant them.
Our preposterous “war on terror ” is not even remotely Constitutional. No war declaration in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Coups, assassinations, torture, warrantless searches and surveillance – all in obvious violation of multiple parts of the Bill of Rights. Is any of this in doubt?
So I’ll ask you the same question: Where does it end? Until people wake the fuck up and understand what is going on, the cancerous growth in state power will continue. How can people reclaim their liberties if they don’t even know about the criminal nature of their government’s actions?
There’s a higher calling than blindly obeying the orders of superiors. It requires a conscience, considerable courage, and a willingness to accept the consequences. Mr. Manning has done his duty. Will we?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:36 pm
Administrator says:
Orwell wasn’t deep. He clearly warned us about the power of the state. The state is all about power and control. The reason Freesmith and the rest of the Republican neo-cons are so angry is because this release of information decreases the state’s power. It reveals the state as incompetent liars and corrupt bureaucrats. Information in the hands of the people is dangerous to the state. The War on Terror is really to maintain peace. The Dept of Homeland Security is protecting our freedom by taking away our liberties. Keeping the masses ignorant keeps the state strong.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:38 pm
Administrator says:
Steve
Freesmith and the State know what is best for you. You just need to keep quiet and stop thinking. The all powerful state will do what is best for ………….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:41 pm
Jackson says:
Steve Hogan,
What you forget is that we Americans have a “Living Constitution.” It means exactly what those people in power say that it means. If you thought that the plain language of the Constitution had a different meaning from what those say it means, disabuse yourself of that archaic notion.
Our war on terror is constitutional because out leaders say it is. There is no higher calling than obeying the orders of superiors.They are God’s representatives on earth.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
7th December 2010 at 11:45 pm
Freesmith says:
“The lower classes smell.”
(George Orwell: “The Road to Wigan Pier”)
More “neo-con anger.”
And unlike you, I’ve actually read Orwell.
Put up some more Rush Limbaugh pictures and quotes. That’ll be just as germane here as elsewhere.
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
12
7th December 2010 at 11:54 pm
Administrator says:
Are you sure Mitt Romney didn’t say that? It sounds like a good Republican campaign slogan for 2012.
It is clear that reading something doesn’t = comprehension.
Rush for POTUS in 2012.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
7th December 2010 at 12:02 am
Administrator says:
Pick out the intellectual Republican leader, Fat person, drug addict,
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
7th December 2010 at 12:08 am
Freesmith says:
Should American intelligence on the hunt for bin Laden be published, along with the names of any informants or agents – Yes or No?
(Remember, there is no war on terror and the US government only wants to maintain the power of the empire.)
Should the New York Times have printed MacArthur’s plan for the Inchon invasion of 1950 before it was executed – Yes or No?
(Remember, Congress did not declare war on North Korea, blacks were being discriminated against and McCarthy was in the Senate.)
Should the United States have any defense or diplomatic secrets whatsoever – Yes or No?
(Remember before you answer that the US has never lived up to its highest ideals, the state is a corrupt racket, and that the ultimate authority is the individual conscience.)
Have a nice day.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
7th December 2010 at 12:14 am
Administrator says:
Hunt for bin Laden? That is hysterical. We spend $900 billion per year on the military and can’t find a 6 foot 8 Arab with kidney disease after 10 years. American Intelligence? Isn’t that an oxymoron when it comes to capturing bin Laden. Great straw man example.
We shouldn’t have been in Korea then and we shouldn’t be in Korea now. Luckily, Eisenhower came to his senses and got our troops out of that ridiculous war. Now that was a Republican. I should post his Military Industrial Complex speech. I’m sure you agree with it.
I’ll answer your 3rd straw man question with the words of a great American:
“The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often “official” government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.” – Ron Paul
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
7th December 2010 at 12:25 am
Freesmith says:
What part of “yes-or-no question” don’t you get?
You didn’t answer question one, you didn’t answer question two and neither you nor Congressman Paul answered question three.
On The Burning Platform, as in baseball, three strikes and you’re out!
See ya!
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
14
7th December 2010 at 12:33 am
Steve Hogan says:
Freesmith, put down the Kool-aid. I don’t see leaks about nuclear launch codes or submarine locations being published. Or is it my imagination?
What I do read is information long suspected and now confirmed, or hilarious revelations about the incompetence and superficiality of world leaders. Oh, and the occasional felony, such as Hillary’s attempt to steal identities. Does that concern you, or is this just another front on the fucking ridiculous war on terror?
You can sleep soundly, pal. There isn’t a towelhead under every bed, and we won’t be invaded by the Taliban.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
7th December 2010 at 12:43 am
Reverse Engineer says:
What I am trying to figure out is what Gonzalo’s purpose is here in doing the amateur hour Sigmund Freud act and subtely Napalming Julian Assange? In the piece, he basically pidgeon holes him as a Juvenile Hacker who spent too much time in Prep School getting reamed by Upperclassmen, emotionally scarred by a custody battle, yadda yadda. What relevance does any of this have to McCarthyism? WTF CARES what JAs motivations are here? Do I care if he is doing this just to exorcise some personal demons, or to become famous enough to dip his wick into Swedish Models? The important fact s that he put up a website designed to leak out information whch would at the very least embarass Goobermint Officials, and hopefully if he is lucky enough to get something REALLY good bring down the organizational system of Goobermint he despises. The more Famous he gets, the more likely it is he gets something really good. So why is it a bad thing if he is a shameless self-promoter? At least if you accept the principle that the more information that gets leaked out here, the better anyhow.
At the very least, he has demonstrated that the wall of secrecy can be penetrated here, although at least so far we haven’t got a Smoking Gun on the level of Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers. Hopefully, his actions will inspire other Juvenile Hackers to pull the same stunt. If he wasn’t good enough to hack into the Squid’s e-mail files, maybe the next hacker will be. The nformation obviously is not going to come out into the light of day if we depend on the MSM to ferret it out, that ain’t gonna happen.
Let’s face it folks, generally speaking most outrageously smart computer geeks are not exactly “normal” people. That is WHY they spend their time in mom’s basement trying to hack into secure databases. Nobody “normal” is going to spend 18 hours a day in front of his laptop doing this kind of shit. Hopefully, Julian Assange inspires a new generation of Geeks who spend their time playing the Wii and a more intriguing and worthwhile game, “Grand Theft Goobermint and Bankster Secrets”.
As for Julian, maybe he ends up disappearing off the map here, incarcerated for whatever gets cooked up here, and Wikileaks gets shut down. If his “Insurance Policy” isn’t good enough and he went into it with too little Ammo, big mistake on his part. The next Geek should learn from those mistakes.
RE
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
2
7th December 2010 at 1:02 am
Steve Hogan says:
Thanks for contributing to the debate, DP. You’re a big help.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
7th December 2010 at 1:38 am
Reverse Engineer says:
@DP
Mainly because its boring Preaching to the Choir
Also though, because at least occassionally I do succeed in switching on some brain cells in some readers, and I always do get a few people who see the Light. I don’t expect to save MOST of the people on a website like this one, they are too far gone to save. They dont bother me though, and it doesn’t really matter what they write, its water off a duck’s back here. I cannot Save Them All. I can only Save as Many as I Can.
RE
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
2
7th December 2010 at 2:10 am
llpoh says:
re:
you’s ma hero!
dp
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
7th December 2010 at 2:50 am
Gonzalo Lira says:
YOU ARE STEALING MY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL—STOP.
YOU CAN EXCERPT THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS, THEN LINK TO THE REST OF MY PIECE AT MY BLOGSITE.
BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO STEAL ALL OF MY POSTS.
IF YOU CONTINUE, I WILL BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU.
GONZALO LIRA
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
11
7th December 2010 at 7:15 am
Anonymous says:
A lie is a lie, but a lie that harms the entire sovereign is by far worse than one designed to to deceive the individual.
Vox said it best here.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
“It is completely false and historically illiterate to argue, as some would have it, that it would be self-destructive for a state in which the people are sovereign to retain no secrets. Quite the opposite is true; because most great powers fall to internal corruption prior to their conquest by external parties, it is the ability of powerful elements within the state to conceal information from the rest of the state that leads to the subversion of the state and its eventual transformation and collapse.
The example of war, so often cited in support of state secrets, actually supports the contrary case even more strongly. While it might have been more difficult make the D-Day landings, the more significant point is that they never would have needed to be made had the American people not been led blindly into World War I, which allowed the stage to be set for the rise of Hitler, the National Socialists, and the conquest of France. In the same manner, the informants who are supposedly endangered by the Wikileaks releases would never have faced any danger if the American people had been in full possession of the facts with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq; those invasions would never have taken place.
Obviously, it is worse for the government to lie in request for information; sins of commission are generally considered worse than sins of omission. But in a supposedly free and democratic society, there is no place for either. And finally, the difference between a state lie and an individual lie is that in the case of the former, (assuming a nominally free and democratic state), the state is lying to itself whereas the individual is lying to someone else. Needless to say, whether one is a state or an individual, one who lies to himself is very unlikely to make optimal decisions. And that is precisely the practical problem that underlines not only the immorality, but the self-destructive foolishness of state secrets.
In a state where the people are sovereign, state secrets are maintained for one reason and one reason only: to permit certain elements of the state to operate freely without taking into account the will of the other elements of the state. This is why state secrets are intrinsically authoritarian and invariably lead to the loss of human liberty over time. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that mine is a “naive” position, as the self-styled geopolitical realists like to describe it. It is nothing of the kind, being an extremely cynical one instead.
Labels: mailvox
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
7th December 2010 at 8:00 am
Administrator says:
Gonzalo
My intention was not to steal your material, it was to get your message out to more people. I included a link to your site and I’ve encouraged my readers to go to your site. Zero Hedge presents your entire articles with a link to your site, so I thought it was alright with you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
1
7th December 2010 at 8:33 am
Administrator says:
Freesmith
I wonder if you realize that you are using the exact tactics of the left wing extremists in your strawman questions. It is exactly the same method used by ultra-liberals to frame the abortion debate. The second a debate starts about abortion, the extemist liberal shouts – “What about cases of rape and incest?” That then frames the debate and makes people take their eye off the real issue. The real issue in the abortion debate is whether you are murdering a human being.
In the debate about the government “protecting” Americans by spying, intervening in other countries’ affairs, forming alliances, having secret deals, torturing people in secret prisons, invading countires under false pretenses, and draining the Treasury running a far flung empire, your questions are nothing but a distraction from the real issue. Should America be telling other countries what to do, threatening them, invading them, forming secret deals out of the view of the American people? The Statist position which you articulate is yes. The libertarian position which I state is No.
This is a very healthy debate. I appreciate your efforts on behalf of the all powerful state.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
7th December 2010 at 9:01 am
Daniel says:
Jim, I remember when you split ways with Jason. It was really interesting reading the nasty emails between you two, when you both decided to ‘out’ each other.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
7th December 2010 at 9:05 am
Administrator says:
Daniel
I posted the emails. I guess I’m Julian Assange.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
7th December 2010 at 9:09 am
Daniel says:
Now who in their right mind would ever tell you something in private?
Gonzalo seems to think you are just like Assange.
Also, wasn’t Macarthy right?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
7th December 2010 at 9:23 am
Robmu1 says:
Julian Assange is a big pussy – too fucking bad that he’s in the can.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
7th December 2010 at 9:33 am
Administrator says:
Daniel
Gonzalo and I have already spoken. We are best buddies. Other sites have stolen his material and presented it as their own. He will now send me his articles as he would like them presented. We didn’t need the all powerful state to settle this for us. Two people coming to a common understanding. Liberty is beautiful, don’t you think?
“Also, wasn’t Macarthy right?” – DANIEL
Thank you for making my job so easy. Only a neo-con extremist Republican would make such a statement. In your book, unfounded accusations without proof is good enough. Destroying people’s lives by association is OK. We now understand why your type agree that assassination is just fine for Julian Assange. All Hail the Powerful STATE.
During the post–World War II era of McCarthyism, many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person’s real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional,dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
7th December 2010 at 9:56 am
Administrator says:
Robmu1
You are supposed to agree with me because all TBPers are my lackeys per Daniel. Get with the program. Dissent is not allowed. I will need to use the all powerful fist of TBP to control you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
7th December 2010 at 10:00 am
Robmu1 says:
Assange has gay hair.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
7th December 2010 at 10:14 am
Administrator says:
Robmu1
One more crack like that about Assange and you shall be banned for life from TBP.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
7th December 2010 at 10:18 am
Robmu1 says:
Assange will be very popular in prison with his feminine look.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
7th December 2010 at 10:27 am
flash says:
Admin- “Also, wasn’t Macarthy right?” – DANIEL
“Thank you for making my job so easy. Only a neo-con extremist Republican would make such a statement. In your book, unfounded accusations without proof is good enough.”
I actually despise the Rght wing of the Republicat buzzard more than the Left due to their galling pretense of party allegiance the support of individual liberty via principles of limited government.What a crock of steaming shit.
That said , I do believe that a national smear campaign against Joe Mccarthy was mounted due the fact that -and THIS IS KEY -without naming names until demanded so by Senate
Democrats-the very party of assholes being investigated – Mccarthy had set out to expose the alarming extent at which Dear Uncle Joe’s agents had infiltrated the powerhouse of the Democrat party.
And for his patriotic duty all he got in return was ridicule and blackballed in the annals of history as a Congressman who cried wolf.
McCarthyism deserves a second look.and i don’t say this as a jingoist ,because as far as I’m concerned the best thing for We the People is to get US out of the U.S.A..
States will be better served by the mutual cooperation laid out in some document similar the Articles of Confederation and let the corrupt, debt riddled carcass of Federal Fascism die painfully quick death.Gone , but never to be forgotten as one of the best and most painful lessons on the malignancy of Centralized Power ever to be learned by any civilized society.
The truth should always be recognized for what it is and McCarthy told it like it was.
http://www.realnews247.com/the_hidden_truth_about_joseph_mccarthy.htm
The Hidden Truth About Joseph McCarthy
Daniel J. Flynn
For generations of American students, the name Joe McCarthy and not Joe Stalin has been synonymous with evil. A practitioner of “black arts,” a “demon,” “ogreish,” and a “seditionist” are a few of the descriptions of him handed down to us from his first major biographer. The passage of time hasn’t tempered these hysterical reactions.
The late senator, the story goes, created a climate of fear in the early 1950s by conducting a witchhunt that called liberals “Communists” and Communists “spies.” We now know better. The witches were real. Today, even many of McCarthy’s most extreme and ridiculed statements—alleging “a conspiracy on a scale so immense” or lambasting “twenty years of treason” in Democratic administrations—seem, if anything, to understate the pervasiveness of Communist infiltration of the U.S. government and the enormity of its damage.
Documents from the Soviet Union’s archives, USSR spy messages deciphered by the U.S. government’s Venona program, and declassified FBI files and wiretaps all prove that hundreds of U.S. officials were agents of an international Communist conspiracy. If these previously inaccessible documents shed light on only a few of McCarthy’s specific charges, they certainly vindicate his general charge that security in the U.S. government was lax and that large numbers of Communists penetrated positions of great importance.
Alger Hiss, Roosevelt foreign policy advisor and first secretary general of the United Nations; Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury and Truman’s appointee as director of the International Monetary Fund; and Lauchlin Currie, administrative assistant to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, have all been confirmed, among hundreds of others, to have been agents of the USSR. In addition to the multitudes of executive branch agents, we also know of at least three Congressmen working clandestinely for the Soviet Union during this time period.
Government was hardly the only domain targeted by Soviet espionage. Influential media figures like I.F. Stone of The Nation, Michael Straight, editor of The New Republic, and Pulitzer Prize Winner Walter Duranty of The New York Times were actually agents of the Soviet Union. Prominent unions like the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the Screen Actors Guild were dominated by Communists. Even major industrialists like Armand Hammer did their part by laundering Soviet money to domestic U.S. Communists.
Despite many of these new revelations, academic opinion of “tail-gunner Joe,” the central enemy of domestic subversion in the early 1950s, has remained static. This consensus had gone unchallenged within academic circles until the release of Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator by George Mason University History Professor Arthur Herman.
In Joseph McCarthy, Arthur Herman writes that the “standard claim that McCarthy had never exposed a real Communist in the government” is “demonstrably false.” A perusal of the major books on McCarthy reveals that this statement itself sets Herman’s work apart.
McCarthy’s “critics were right,” Rutgers Professor David Oshinsky remarks in A Conspiracy So Immense, “he never uncovered a Communist.” Thomas Reeves of the University of Wisconsin opines in The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy that “McCarthy did not have a single name.” Robert Griffith maintains in The Politics of Fear, “Each of McCarthy’s charges was fraudulent.” “It happened to be a fact,” boasted Richard Rovere in Senator Joe McCarthy, “that not one certifiable Communist had been disclosed as working for the government” as a result of the junior senator from Wisconsin’s efforts.
Herman dissents and offers up Owen Lattimore, Edward Posniak, Mary Jane Keeney, Gustavo Duran, and John Carter Vincent as among the cases in which McCarthy had things essentially right.
Among one of the first names McCarthy named was that of Mary Jane Keeney. Mrs. Keeney worked in various sensitive overseas State Department jobs during the 1940s before settling in at the United Nations. Intercepted Venona cables, as well as her own diaries, prove that Keeney and her husband were Soviet agents. In February of 1950 McCarthy understated matters by labeling this agent of a foreign power merely a Communist. By the end of that year she was forced out of her post at the United Nations.
For anti-anticommunists, McCarthy’s charges against Gustavo Duran stood as “proof of the insanity of the red scare.” Michael Straight, Duran’s brother-in-law and editor of The New Republic, would use the pages of his magazine to promote Duran’s supposed innocence and McCarthy’s assumed recklessness. Testimony by many attesting to Duran’s Stalinism and work for the Spanish Communist secret police during the Spanish Civil War—even a picture of him in a Communist uniform—was dismissed as Francoist propaganda. One would think that Straight’s later admission to being a Soviet agent should have at least sparked a second look into this McCarthy allegation by historians.
Besides Herman, there haven’t been any takers. Herman asserts that Duran was “not only a Communist but a central figure in Stalin’s cold-blooded purge of his Trotskyite and anarchist allies during the Spanish Civil War.” Later, Duran’s supporters would lamely point out that Duran, like Mrs. Keeney, was technically no longer a State Department employee since he worked at the United Nations. The fact that he, like Keeney, was paid by the State Department and was definitely a Communist didn’t factor into their passage of judgement on McCarthy’s charges against Duran.
More so than any other witness, Annie Lee Moss purportedly exposed the cruelty and recklessness of Joseph McCarthy. Moss, who somehow jumped from an Army cafeteria worker to a clerk in the Pentagon code room, was labeled by McCarthy to be a loyalty risk. A middle-aged African American woman who walked to give her testimony with an elderly gait, Moss quickly gained the sympathy of Democrats on McCarthy’s committee. When asked about her knowledge of Karl Marx, Moss asked, “Who’s that?” The copies of The Daily Worker that arrived at her house were sent to the wrong address, she maintained. There were three Annie Lee Mosses in Washington, DC, her defenders intoned, so perhaps McCarthy had gotten the wrong woman.
McCarthy-haters seized on the Moss case as a club with which to beat anti-Communists. Edward R. Murrow devoted his weekly “See It Now” program to Mrs. Moss’s plight, while Missouri Senator Stu Symington told the witness that if she lost her job with the Army she could always come work for him. Just a year after McCarthy’s death it was revealed that he had indeed got the right woman. There was only one Annie Lee Moss in Washington, DC and it was the same Annie Lee Moss whose name and address appeared on the rolls of the local Communist Party. A former FBI agent even attested to seeing her actual Communist Party membership card from years earlier. If one U.S. Senator should be destroyed for allegedly making false accusations of Communism, what should the penalty be for another who announces to the world his willingness to give a Communist a job in his office?
If a dishonest characterization of McCarthy is the largest common denominator among anti-anticommunists, then hypocrisy is a close second.
So-called McCarthyite devices, such as the Smith Act and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, were creations not of Cold Warriors, but of New Deal Democrats. When they were used against fascists or even Trotskyites, Herman reminds readers, the Communists applauded and at times even aided and abetted the government. Only years later when the tables were turned did liberals change their tune about the methods they created. All that mattered was whose ox was being gored.
After McCarthy first made his charges public in February of 1950, Senate Democrats demanded that he stop hiding behind closed-door sessions and name names. Once McCarthy did what they asked, these very same Senate Democrats pounced on him for making charges without giving the accused the opportunity to defend themselves.
McCarthy’s enemies—supposed champions of civil liberties—tapped his phone, intercepted his incoming personal mail, placed a paid spy in his office, and illegally released his tax returns to the press (resulting in a large refund!). Herman recounts the amusing story of Paul Hughes, one that has been curiously forgotten by most McCarthy biographers. Hughes, a confidence man, convinced members of the Democratic National Committee, famous labor lawyer Joseph Rauh, and the Washington Post that he was a spy in McCarthy’s office and that he had evidence of major lawbreaking by the Senator. Rauh and a DNC leader paid more than $10,000 for the information, and the Post prepared a twelve-part series on the allegations, which included a bizarre tale about McCarthy stockpiling weapons in the basement of the Capitol, with an obvious implication of a coup. After nine-months of feeding absurd stories about McCarthy to liberals hungry for anything that would defame their enemy, Hughes was revealed as a fraud. The massive Post series was killed at the last minute.
“McCarthy opponents liked to claim that what made McCarthy reek in the nostrils of American democracy was not what McCarthy was doing but how he did it: the public airing of unsubstantiated charges, the use of smear and innuendo, and ‘confidential informants, dossiers, political spies,’ as Joseph Rauh himself had written,” Herman observes. “The Hughes case proves that some of them were willing to do at least the same to him.”
Although McCarthy is charged with a failure to distinguish between liberals and Communists, it was generally liberals, Herman points out, who couldn’t recognize the differences. It was Franklin Roosevelt, after all, who brought Alger Hiss to Yalta and Harry Truman who promoted Harry Dexter White to head the International Monetary Fund. Both Truman and Roosevelt entrusted these Soviet agents with top positions long after they had been told that Hiss and White were involved in espionage.
During the time that the Senate was debating whether to condemn McCarthy, Andrei Vishinsky, prosecutor for Stalin’s show trials, passed away after having sent scores of people to their deaths for crimes they didn’t commit. “McCarthy had not sent one person to jail. Yet by a terrible irony of fate,” Herman notes, “it is his name, not Vishinsky’s, that has been universally remembered and reviled as the symbol of an error of terror and suspicion.”
This February 9, marks the 50th anniversary of McCarthy’s famous Wheeling, West Virginia, address. The five decades that have passed since this earthshattering speech have seen an unending academic assault not just on McCarthy, but on just about any figure who took the view that Communism was inherently evil. Arthur Herman’s Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of Americas Most Hated Senator is a much needed antidote to the many propagandistic screeds that have made McCarthy a bogeyman in academic circles and beyond. Willing to point out McCarthy’s flaws and his strengths, Herman offers up a view of McCarthy detached from the hysteria surrounding so many other works on the subject.
It is folly to think that Joe McCarthy, like J. Parnell Thomas, Martin Dies, and A. Mitchell Palmer before him, was attacked because he smeared innocents. Joe McCarthy’s real crime was calling Communists precisely what they were: Communists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
7th December 2010 at 10:46 am
Kill Bill says:
Whats really bizarro to me is the number of anti-government [the problem] folks are now defending it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
7th December 2010 at 10:47 am
Daniel says:
Gonzalo illustrates a perfect example right here in the WikiLeaks thread. Too much information. This really sounds like you guys are ‘best buddies’. I’m sure a kick in the teeth from his lawyers would consummate your friendship. My point is that not everything is fair game. Unless of course, you believe that our gov’t is fundamentally evil and flawed, our military is evil, and that it all need to be reduced to ashes.
YOU ARE STEALING MY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL—STOP.
YOU CAN EXCERPT THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS, THEN LINK TO THE REST OF MY PIECE AT MY BLOGSITE.
BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO STEAL ALL OF MY POSTS.
IF YOU CONTINUE, I WILL BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU.
GONZALO LIRA
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
7th December 2010 at 10:57 am
flash says:
For any interested below is a list of names deciphered from interception of the Soviet’sVennona Cable’s
You decide, but this leftwing asshole’s involvement with the Soviet
Union would definitely peak my interest if i were a congressman serving during the 1950′s
# Harry Dexter White,[2] Senior U.S. Treasury department official, primary designer of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
/craigwhitephoto.jpg[/img]
There possibly would be no RED CHINA if not for this Agent of Uncle Joe Stain.And let’s not neglect the fact that FDR’s VP Henry Wallace was also a documented communist and supporter of Stalin. The point is that this country was sold out long ago and not by workingclass Joe’s like McCarthy , but by Ivy League asswipes the ilk of Wallace and Dexter
NSA cryptographers identified Harry Dexter White as the Soviet agent denoted in the Venona decrypts at various times under the code names “Lawyer”,[44] “Richard”,[45] and “Jurist”.[46] Two years after his death, in a memorandum dated 15 October 1950, White was positively identified by the FBI, through evidence gathered by the Venona project, as a Soviet source, code named “Jurist”.[47] Years later, the Justice Department publicly disclosed the existence of the Venona project which deciphered Soviet cable traffic naming White as “Jurist”, a Soviet intelligence source. As reported in the FBI Memorandum on White:
You have previously been advised of information obtained from [Venona] regarding Jurist, who was active during 1944. According to the previous information received from [Venona] regarding Jurist, during April, 1944, he had reported on conversations between the then Secretary of State Hull and Vice President Wallace. He also reported on Wallace’s proposed trip to China. On August 5, 1944, he reported to the Soviets that he was confident of President Roosevelt’s victory in the coming elections unless there was a huge military failure. He also reported that Truman’s nomination as Vice President was calculated to secure the vote of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. It was also reported that Jurist was willing for any self-sacrifice in behalf of the MGB but was afraid that his activities, if exposed, might lead to a political scandal and have an effect on the elections. It was also mentioned that he would be returning to Washington, D. C., on August 17, 1944. The new information from [Venona] indicates that Jurist and Morgenthau were to make a trip to London and Normandy and leaving the United States on August 5, 1944.
This codename was confirmed by the notes of KGB archivist Vasili Nikitich Mitrokhin in his country volume 6, chapter 3, part1, where six key Soviet agents are named. Harry Dexter White is listed as being first “KASSIR” and later “JURIST”.[48]
Another example of White acting as an agent of inflence for the Soviet Union was his obstruction of a proposed $200 million loan to Nationalist China in 1943, which he had been officially instructed to execute,[49] at a time when inflation was spiraling out of control.[50]
Other Venona decrypts revealed further damaging evidence against White, including White’s suggestions on how to meet and pass information on to his Soviet handler. Venona Document #71 contains decryptions of White’s discussions on being paid for his work for the Soviet Union.[50][51]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
Significance
The decrypted messages gave important insights into Soviet behavior in the period during which duplicate one-time pads were used. With the first break into the code, Venona revealed the existence of Soviet espionage[15] at Los Alamos National Laboratories.[16] Identities soon emerged of American, Canadian, Australian and British spies in service to the Soviet government, including Klaus Fuchs, Alan Nunn May and Donald Maclean, a member of the Cambridge Five spy ring. Others worked in Washington in the State Department, The Treasury, Office of Strategic Services,[17] and even the White House.
The decrypts show that the US and other nations were targeted in major espionage campaigns by the Soviet Union as early as 1942. Among those identified are Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White,[18] the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie,[19] a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin,[20] a section head in the Office of Strategic Services.
The identification of individuals mentioned in Venona transcripts is sometimes problematic, since people with a “covert relationship” with Soviet intelligence are referenced by code names.[21] Further complicating matters is the fact that the same person sometimes had different code names at different times, and the same code name was sometimes reused for different individuals. In some cases, notably that of Alger Hiss, the matching of a Venona code name to an individual is disputed. In many other cases, a Venona code name has not yet been linked to any person. According to authors John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, the Venona transcripts identify approximately 349 Americans whom they claim had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence, though fewer than half of these have been matched to real-name identities.[22]
The Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA, housed at one time or another between fifteen and twenty Soviet spies.[23] Duncan Lee, Donald Wheeler, Jane Foster Zlatowski, and Maurice Halperin passed information to Moscow. The War Production Board, the Board of Economic Warfare, the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and the Office of War Information, included at least half a dozen Soviet sources each among their employees. In the opinion of some, almost every American military and diplomatic agency of any importance was compromised to some extent by Soviet espionage.[24]
Some scholars and journalists dispute the claims by Haynes, Klehr, and others concerning the precision of the matching of code names to actual persons. Also contested is the implication that all 349 persons identified had an intentional “covert relationship” with Soviet intelligence; it is argued that in some cases the individual may have been an unwitting information source or a prospect for future recruitment by Soviet intelligence.
List of Americans in the Venona papers[
List
* John Abt**[2]
* Solomon Adler**[2]
* Rudy Baker**[2][3]
* Joel Barr[2]
* Alice Barrows[2]
* Theodore Bayer, President, Russky Golos Publishing[2]
* Cedric Belfrage[2]
* Elizabeth Bentley[2]
* Joseph Milton Bernstein[2]
* Earl Browder[2], American communist and General Secretary of the Communist Party USA from 1934 to 1945.
* Paul Burns**[2][4]
* Sylvia Callen**[2]
* Virginius Frank Coe[2]
* Lona Cohen**[2]
* Morris Cohen**[2], Communist Party USA & Portland Spy Ring member who was courier for Manhattan Project physicist Theodore Hall.
* Judith Coplon[2]
* Lauchlin Currie[2], White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt and director of World Bank mission to Colombia.
* Byron T. Darling**[2]
* Eugene Dennis[2]
* Samuel Dickstein**[2]
* Martha Dodd**[2], daughter of William Dodd, who served as the United States ambassador to Germany between 1933 and 1937.
* William E. Dodd Jr.[2]
* Laurence Duggan,[2] Head of the South American desk at the United States Department of State during World War II.
* Eufrosina Dvoichenko-Markov[2]
* Nathan Einhorn[2]
* Jack Bradley Fahy[2]
* Linn Markley Farish, senior liaison officer with Josip Broz Tito’s Yugoslav Partisan forces[2]
* Edward J. Fitzgerald[2]
* Charles Flato[2]
* Isaac Folkoff[2]
* Jane Foster[2]
* Zalmond David Franklin[2]
* Isabel Gallardo[2][5]
* Boleslaw K. Gerbert[2][6]
* Rebecca Getzoff[2]
* Harold Glasser,[2] U.S. Treasury Dept. economist, United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) spokesman.
* Bela Gold[2]
* Harry Gold,[2] sentenced to 30 years for his role in the Rosenbergs’ ring
* Sonia Steinman Gold[2]
* Jacob Golos,[2] “main pillar” of NKVD spy network, particularly the Sound/Myrna group, he died in the arms of Elizabeth Bentley
* George Gorchoff[2]
* Gerald Graze**,[2][7]
* David Greenglass,[2] machinist at Los Alamos sentenced to 15 years for his role in Rosenberg ring; he was the brother of executed Ethel Rosenberg
* Ruth Greenglass[2]
* Theodore Alvin Hall,[2] Manhattan Project physicist who gave plutonium purification secrets to Soviet intelligence.
* Maurice Halperin,[2] American writer, professor, diplomat, and Soviet spy (NKVD code name “Hare”).
* Kitty Harris,[2]
* Clarence Hiskey**,[2]
* Alger Hiss,[2] Lawyer involved in the establishment of the United Nations, both as a U.S. State Department and UN official.
* Donald Hiss**[2]
* Harry Hopkins,[2] One of FDR’s closest advisers & New Deal architect, esp. Works Progress Administration (WPA),
* Louis Horwitz[2]
* Bella Joseph**[2]
* Emma Harriet Joseph[2]
* Gertrude Kahn[2]
* Joseph Katz[2]
* Helen Grace Scott Keenan[2]
* Mary Jane Keeney[2]
* Philip Keeney[2]
* Alexander Koral**[2]
* Helen Koral[2]
* Samuel Krafsur[2]
* Charles Kramer[2]
* Christina Krotkova,[2]
* Sergej Nikolaevich Kurnakov[2]
* Stephen Laird[2]
* Oscar Lange[2]
* Richard Lauterbach, employee at Time magazine[2]
* Duncan C. Lee[2]
* Michael S. Leshing[2]
* Helen Lowry[2]
* William Mackey[2]
* Harry Samuel Magdoff[2][8]
* William Malisoff, owner and manager of United Laboratories[2]
* Hede Massing**[2]
* Robert Owen Menaker[2]
* Floyd Cleveland Miller[2]
* James Walter Miller[2]
* Robert Miller**[2]
* Robert G. Minor,[2] Office of Strategic Services, Belgrade
* Leonard Emil Mins[2]
* Nichola Napoli[2]
* Franz Neumann**[2]
* David K. Niles
* Eugénie Olkhine[2][9]
* Frank Oppenheimer**[2]
* Julius Robert Oppenheimer[2], Scientific director of the Manhattan Project and chief advisor to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
* Nicholas V. Orloff[2]
* Edna Margaret Patterson[2]
* William Perl[2]
* Victor Perlo[2]
* Aleksandr N. Petroff, Curtiss-Wright Aircraft
* Vladimir Aleksandrovich Posner, United States War Department[2]
* Lee Pressman[2]
* Mary Wolfe Price[2]
* Bernard Redmont**[2]
* Peter Rhodes[2]
* Stephan Sandi Rich[2]
* Kenneth Richardson, World Wide Electronics[2]
* Samuel Jacob Rodman, United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration[2]
* Allan Rosenberg[2]
* Julius Rosenberg,[2] United States Army Signal Corps Laboratories, executed for role in the Rosenberg ring
* Ethel Rosenberg,[2] executed for role in Rosenberg ring based on testimony of her brother, David Greenglass
* Amadeo Sabatini[2]
* Alfred Epaminodas Sarant[2]
* Marian Miloslavovich Schultz[2]
* Milton Schwartz[2]
* John Scott[2]
* Ricardo Setaro[2][10]
* Charles Bradford Sheppard, Hazeltine Electronics[2]
* Abraham George Silverman[2]
* Nathan Gregory Silvermaster[2], U.S. War Production Board (WPB) economist and head of a major ring of spies in the U.S. government.
* Cary Hiles[2]
* Helen Silvermaster[2], Leader of the American League for Peace & Democracy and the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties.
* Morton Sobell[2][11]
* Jack Soble[2]
* Robert Soble[2]
* Johannes Steele[2]
* I. F. Stone[2], Investigative journalist whose newsletter, I. F. Stone’s Weekly, was ranked 16th out of 100 by his fellow journalists.
* Augustina Stridsberg[2]
* Anna Louise Strong[2]
* Helen Tenney**[2]
* Mikhail Tkach, editor of the Ukrainian Daily News[2]
* William Ludwig Ullmann[2]
* Irving Charles Velson[2]
* Margietta Voge[2]
* William Weisband**[2]
* Donald Wheeler[2]
* Maria Wicher[2]
* Harry Dexter White,[2] Senior U.S. Treasury department official, primary designer of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
* Ruth Beverly Wilson[2]
* Ignacy Witczak**[2][12]
* Ilya Elliott Wolston[2]
* Flora Don Wovschin[2]
* Jones Orin York[2]
* Daniel Abraham Zaret, Spanish War veteran[2]
* Mark Zborovski[2]
[edit] See also
* Venona project
* History of Soviet and Russian espionage in the United States
* List of Soviet agents in the United States
* Active measures
[edit] References
* National Security Agency, Venona Archives, Introductory History of VENONA and Guide to the Translations by Robert L. Benson, 1995.
[edit] Footnotes
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
7th December 2010 at 11:08 am
Administrator says:
Daniel
I’ll leak the secret email exchange between myself and Gonzalo. Laws not needed. Government intervention not needed. Dept of Homeland Security not needed. Gonzalo didn’t need to invade my country.
Alrighty then.
I’ll send you a heads up with intro paragraph tomorrow when the post is up.
Very decent of you, Jim.
All the best,
GL
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Quinn, Jim wrote:
Gonzalo
I understand completely your concern. I would love to post your material on a regular basis and drive visitors to your site. I’m looking forward to Wikileaks part 2.
Thanks
Jim
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
7th December 2010 at 11:36 am
Daniel says:
Now you know what US diplomats are in the middle of. Lots of those types of “I understand” calls. Our soldiers will have a tougher time with these ‘leaks’.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
7th December 2010 at 11:47 am
Kill Bill says:
Our soldiers will have a tougher time with these ‘leaks’. -=Daniel=-
I, respectfully call BS. The Taliban, for one, is being funded by military contractors so they can move supplies to military bases. The Saudis have been funding insurgents since well before cablegate. Its the politicians that put our troops, pre-emptive wars of choice, into harms way. And I seriously doubt those making IEDs, also well before cablegate, give a crap about what some diplomat has said. It is failed diplomacy that also puts troops in harms way. Why I could make the argument that diplomats are also responsible for putting troops in harms way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
7th December 2010 at 11:58 am
Kill Bill says:
Why many of our politicians are traitors IMO because no where in our constitution does it say that America should be an empire nor does it say anywhere that our troops should be used to open markets in foreign lands or work to control resources in foreign lands a la new dutch east india company.
The troops werent put in harms way when Elsberg read/put the pentagon papers into the congressional record. If anything it helped end the vietnam war taking troops out of harms way. The leaking of Valerie Plames name put far more people into harms way than leaks from cynical and often tabloidal sounding cables.
the backlash on cablegate by the very politicians that sent the troops into a quagmire isnt about the troops at all. Thats just spin. The politicians dont like the disinfecting light shone onto their cockroach brown exoskeletons
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
7th December 2010 at 12:09 pm
StuckInNJ says:
McCarthyism is like a woman accusing me of rape. Or, my ex-wife acusing me of child molestation.
By that I mean is all it takes to ruin you is The ACCUSATION.
It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. You stand a damn good chance of getting arrested.
Sure, sure. It probably will be thrown out of court (but not always) once the facts are investigated. But by then the damage has been done. You spend thousands defending a false accusation. You may have lost your job. Or, home. You certainly lost your reputation. All over an … Accusation.
“Commie !!!” …. used to do the trick.
“Traitor”, “Terrorist” … is all it takes today.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
7th December 2010 at 12:10 pm
Daniel says:
Kill Bill: On 7/10 WikiLeaks release thousands of files on the Afghan war. Later, on the war in Iraq. The release included specific information that puts soldiers lives at risk.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
7th December 2010 at 12:15 pm
Administrator says:
Daniel
Our soldiers are having a tough time because they are there. 5,000 had a really tough time. They are no longer alive. Have we caught bin Laden yet? How about those WMD? Found any yet? If your government didn’t exaggerate the threat from Iraq, thousands of soldiers would be better off.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
7th December 2010 at 12:18 pm
Daniel says:
“your government”?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
7th December 2010 at 12:21 pm
Whippet says:
Very good comment, Stuck!
This same phenomenon is why social networking is a plague on kids today. Someone slanders you, and it spreads like wildfire.
But McCarthy was as much a victim of slander as he was a user of it- both sides were assholes in the debate. I have no doubts that the Elites were pro-Communist; the effects of this are evident in the explosion of government social programs, planning and controls in the last 70 years. To marginalize, denigrate, and ultimately destroy McCarthy only helped the Progressive agenda. They accomplished this through slander, whitewashed through the popular media.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
7th December 2010 at 12:23 pm
Thinker says:
You have to love it… a virtual revolution taking place:
Hackers strike back to support WikiLeaks founder
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
7th December 2010 at 12:31 pm
Kill Bill says:
Kill Bill: On 7/10 WikiLeaks release thousands of files on the Afghan war. Later, on the war in Iraq. The release included specific information that puts soldiers lives at risk. -=Daniel=-
Cart before horse. The troops have been there for what 7 years? We are involved in a whats basically a far off civil war. If the politicians were actually concerned about troops safety they wouldnt have sent them to Afghanistan in the first place. Using the troops, now, as some kind of rational to create more draconian laws is ludicrous at best.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
7th December 2010 at 12:53 pm
Administrator says:
Daniel
I belong to the United Republic of the Burning Platform. URBP to you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
7th December 2010 at 12:54 pm
Kill Bill says:
On 7/10 WikiLeaks release thousands of files on the Afghan war -=Daniel=-
I read thru some of those files. Most were reports on finding weapons caches and visiting with Afghans in villages. Shootouts with insurgents. The weapons caches they found were destroyed. Please list a specific report which backs up your assertions as I didnt see any.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
7th December 2010 at 12:55 pm
Administrator says:
Thinker
Viva La Revolution!!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
7th December 2010 at 1:01 pm
Kill Bill says:
[Smokey] Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Assange eats shit. Private Bradley Manning should be executed for treason.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17
_____________________________________________
First time I have ever seen that. WTG Smokes!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
7th December 2010 at 1:11 pm
StuckInNJ says:
The timing of events:
July 25, 2010 —- wikiLeaks posts the Afghan War Diaries — the documents which allegedly present such a dire threat to our soldiers and national security.
Questions:
1 –Did we hear anything from the administration immediately after the release of these documents?
2 — Did we hear anything from them on this subject in August or September?
3 — Did we hear any complaining in the run up to the elections in October?
4 — Did you we anything about it after the elections?
5 — Did anyone really give a flying fuck about our soldiers?
Answers:
1 — No.
2 — No.
3 — No.
4 — No
5 — No.
.
Q: When did TPTB start crying about National Security?
A: About 10 days ago.
.
Q: Why?
A: On October 28th WikiLeaks began releasing the infamous State Department cables.
.
Try to connect the dots people.
1. This is NOT about National Security
2. THIS IS ABOUT POTUS AND TPTB COVERING THEIR FUCKING ASSES.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
1
7th December 2010 at 1:16 pm
Kill Bill says:
“There appears to be no statute that generally proscribes the acquisition or publication of diplomatic cables,” according to a newly updated report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service, “although government employees who disclose such information without proper authority may be subject to prosecution.”
But there is a thicket of statutes, most notably including the Espionage Act, that could conceivably be used to punish unauthorized publication of classified information, such as the massive releases made available by Wikileaks. See “Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information”, December 6, 2010.
The updated CRS report sorts through those statutes, provides an account of recent events, presents a new discussion of extradition of foreign nationals who are implicated by U.S. law, and summarizes new legislation introduced in the Senate (S. 4004).
A previous version (pdf) of the CRS report, issued in October, was cited by Sen. Dianne Feinstein in a Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday in support of prosecuting Wikileaks, though the report did not specifically advise such a course of action. Sen. Feinstein also seemed to endorse the view that the State Department cables being released by Wikileaks are categorically protected by the Espionage Act and should give rise to a prosecution under the Act.
But the Espionage Act only pertains to information “relating to the national defense,” and only a minority of the diplomatic cables could possibly fit that description.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
7th December 2010 at 2:19 pm
StuckInNJ says:
KB — wasn’t Al Capone eventually jailed for tax evasion … or some other crap totally unraled to his actual crimes?
The point being that if the Feds want to nail your ass … they can and will … whether it’s the Espionage Act, Suck My Dick Act, or Shove It Up Your Ass Act.
Even the Swedes have a Wear a Fucking Rubber Act.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
7th December 2010 at 2:30 pm
Kill Bill says:
KB — wasn’t Al Capone eventually jailed for tax evasion … or some other crap totally unraled to his actual crimes? -=SiNJ
Yes. And I concur that the reason for the unprotected sex charge is because legally they dont have much, if any, chance with other charges.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
7th December 2010 at 2:36 pm
llpoh says:
Steve Hogan – I generally agree with you. We need to get the fuck out of conflicts everywhere.
My point specifically is about military personnel. They simply cannot, and will not, be allowed to leak information. The penalty for doing so will be very long stretches at hard labor, or worse.
History belongs to the victors. History is littered with the carcasses of military personnel who tried to “do the right thing”. How many German officers were purged trying to battle Hitler? did they succeed? No-o-o-o. Was it a worthy goal? Of course. Nations require obedience from the military, and rightfully so. A nation’s military secrets simply cannot be leaked by members of its military if it is to be effective. Where would the leaking end? With nuclear codes? Strategic plans?
If a member of the military is going to stand up against what he/she perceives as injustice or unconstitutional acts, he/she can expect to be crushed underfoot. No military or nation anywhere would allow it. Only in very rare situations will history show them in a good light – for instance if a full revolution occurs and the government is overthrown. In any event, the first up-risers can expect to meet unfortunate fates.
I am happy to condemn the actions of the government or the military, and there are many worthy of severe condemnation. I do not trust them at all. But I am not willing to extend to members of the military the right to leak whatever they deem fit to leak, based on their own judgment. That would lead to chaos and an extreme undermining of national security.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
7th December 2010 at 6:03 pm
Novista says:
llpoh
“But I am not willing to extend to members of the military the right to leak whatever they deem fit to leak, based on their own judgment.”
Now you know why you scored as statist on that test.
The oath:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
There’s a lot of wiggle room in that. If, in your judgment (whose else would matter?) you perceive a mismatch between the first clause and the remainder, in a given situation, which do you support?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
7th December 2010 at 6:34 am
llpoh says:
Novista – I wouldn’t presume to interpret the Constitution.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
7th December 2010 at 7:44 am
llpoh says:
Novista – I do not believe military personnel have the ability to interpret the Constitution. Hell, the best legal minds in the country often cannot agree on interpretation. The military will not stand for leaks and the “defend the Constitution” defence is unlikely to be accepted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
7th December 2010 at 4:21 pm