[ExI] Who is safe?

spike spike66 at att.net
Wed Dec 15 18:51:04 UTC 2010

... On Behalf Of Keith Henson
Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe?

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:00 AM,   "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


>> But how do we know these are true?  Any of this could have been 
>> written by anyone after the leak, or could be counterfeit, 
>> intentionally placed in case of a leak.  Do we have any way to confirm
any of it?

>...There has been no denying of anything as fake by the US government...

Ja, I wouldn't expect any denials at this point.  The target isn't Assange
so much as the news majors, who are even still looked upon as arbiters of
sufficient evidence.

>...That's not exactly conformation, but it sure is a strong indication...

It is a strong indication, but it isn't clear to me what it indicates.  If
the file is salted with juicy gossip, memetic Trojan horses and booby traps,
those who placed them there would not say anything.  Yet.  If Julian or one
of his associates wrote them, they wouldn't say anything at all.  If the CIA
wrote them, they would wait until a political adversary takes the bait.  It
is possible Julian Assange is being used as a tool or a distraction but he
is not a sufficiently valuable target to justify expending the munitions.

Watch carefully in the next few weeks.  Listen and think of every
possibility.  There may be more than one bad guy, who may not even be
working together, nor all be on the same side. 

Keith I don't know if you were ever a San Jose Mercury News reader, but if
so, you may have followed Gary Webb's career trajectory.  He published some
incendiary charges against the CIA, which were later disowned by the Merc.
This whole Assange adventure feels a little like that episode.  In the end,
Webb perished of two gunshots to the head, eventually declared
self-inflicted.  Indeed?  Did he have a double barreled shotgun? An
automatic machine gun?  Two pistols fired simultaneously?  Interestingly,
several news sources later reported (again with insufficient evidence) that
the CIA had confessed to "more than Gary reported" but apparently not the
exact charges that Gary reported.  In that case his gunshot wounds, if
self-inflicted, would be considered justifiable homicide.  Otherwise not.
His story hit the headlines over 14 years ago, but I remember it like it was

>Incidentally, the response of the US government has been over the top
considering what has come out so far...

That's one of the things that makes me suspicious.  If they doth protest too
much, they bring suspicion upon that which they are too-vigorously denying.
That draws the attention of the investigators, who are distracted from the
more damaging stuff.  After exhaustive investigation, the truth eventually
comes out: the government was actually telling the truth on that particular
aspect.  They were telling it in a misleading way by insisting with
excessive enthusiasm, causing the suspicious to doubt.  The adversarial news
agencies have then invested precious resources and credibility, only to make
their own government look like a den of truth-tellers.  Hey it has happened
spectacularly in the cases of Dan Rather and Gary Webb.

Am I cynical or what?  {8^D  This makes me a double conspiracy theorist The
bad guys attack the worse guys by telling the truth in such a way that it
sounds like a lie.

> Of course, the government know what's in those cable since they certainly
have copies...

If they are cleared to a sufficient level they are.  Those below that do not
know which are real and which could be memetic landmines...

>It is possible that Manning will eventually be classed a patriot and
Assange honored as a hero in the US...Keith Henson

Ja, they already are by plenty of Americans.  

Note that neither Assange nor PFC Manning are making any specific
accusations, but rather are both merely messengers.  Let us see if any of
the news majors will make any specific accusations based on the wikileaks
material.  Has anyone seen any?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list