Why Wiki leaks

Anisa Abd el Fattah





As a result of downloading and sharing with various news outlets, highly sensitive and sometimes classified information never made public before, an organization known as Wikileaks has been catapulted onto the front pages of every major newspaper in the world. As a result, people everywhere are asking who is behind the Wikileaks operation and why Wiki is leaking.


These are good questions considering that the organization seems to have access not only to extremely sensitive US government defense files, but also diplomatic cables between embassies and secret information belonging to banks and powerful corporations. Most government and bank employees don’t have access to this type of information, which makes it clear that Wikileaks activists are not simply disgruntled government or bank employees as some might suspect, just having a good time embarrassing and frustrating the US government and major banks. It’s also pretty clear that Wikileaks is not an organization that is being energized by a desire for publicity and or notoriety, since it seems that only its founder and leader, Julian Assange is recognizable.



Questions that seek to ascertain if indeed Wikileaks is a criminal enterprise seem to have taken a backseat to a more philosophical conversation that focuses mostly on the morality of what Wikileaks does. That conversation is saturated with somewhat esoteric idealism that pits the small and anonymous Wikileaks in opposition to a government and elite behemoth that is wrapped in unnecessary secrecy. In this respect, it is the secrecy itself that is the target and the details of what is actually being leaked, and its potentially negative impact is seen as merely collateral damage in a war being fought for greater transparency. Wikileaks describes itself in such terms saying on its website:



"Wikileaks is a non profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish information of ethical, political and historical significance, while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."



Wikileaks heads one of its various websites with a banner saying, “Keep us strong, help Wikileaks keep governments open.”



On the other side of the conversation are those who say that Wikileaks is a criminal outfit that is carrying out cyber warfare against the United States. In a USA Today article, (Wikileaks actions: An act of cyber war?) former State Department official under the Bush administration, Christian Whiton said;

“Assaulting the company electronically is something worth trying…it buys you time to go after the organization in other ways.” According to the article, Whiton believes that Wikileaks is a “foreign organization trying to impede US policy.” [1]



US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that Wikileaks is the subject of an “active and ongoing criminal investigation.” This statement is contextualized by Holder’s earlier statement, where he said, “To the extent that we can find anybody involved in the breaking of America law, who put at risk the assets and the people I have described…” [2]



Between these two opinions of Wikileaks in respect to its motives, there still lies the question of Wikileaks criminality. To most observers it is obvious that Wikileaks is not an overtly criminal operation. There does not seem to be any statute that criminalizes publishing sensitive information that has been censored to protect the names of US assets and to censor other information that might be deemed harmful to US interests. According to The New York Times and other news outlets that actually published the information, all information deemed harmful to US interests and assets was redacted.



On December 8th, 2010 National Public Radio,(NPR) aired a program called Fresh Air, which is hosted by Terry Goss. Goss interviewed the New York Time’s Washington Correspondent David Sanger. Sanger makes it clear in the interview that the New York Times acted in cooperation with the US government to insure that no Wikileaks information was released that would harm US interests in any significant way.



An online journal known as Global Research.ca published a transcript of the Sanger interview. In the introduction to the transcript, Michael Chossodovsky, the sites founder and editor wrote the following observations:


"The following transcript points to the involvement of the corporate media including the New York Times in the Wikileaks project. How do we interpret this relationship? The corporate media is the source of disinformation and at the same time it is supporting "transparency" and truth in media. David E. Sanger, Washington Correspondent of the New York Times, worked closely with Wikileaks. He was involved in the distribution, editing and dissemination of the leaked documents. Sanger is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Strategy Group together with Madeleine K. Albright, Richard Hass, R Talbott, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director of the 9/11 Commission).

We have highlighted a number of important statements in the first part of this interview, which confirm that the NYT has not only been involved in the selection and redacting of the Wikileaks documents, it has undertaken these activities in consultation with the US government.

Unquestionably the released documents constitute an important data bank in their own right. The question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of the released documents to the broader public. What interests are being served?"[3]



Along with those who don't feel that Wikileaks is a criminal enterprise, and that Wikileaks in fact works in cooperation with the US government, there are also those who feel that Wikileaks has been used by the Israeli government to leak information that actually facilitates Israel’s foreign policy objectives that include a US war with Iran.



In an article published by World Bulletin, (Wikileaks-The Tel Aviv Connection) author Jeff Gates wrote:



"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Con me consistently for six decades and the relationship is over, as is Israel’s credibility as a legitimate nation state. Tel Aviv knows this, but what can the Zionist state do about it? Answer: Wikileaks. Why now? Misdirection!" [4]



In Gate’s opinion, Wikileaks is possibly a Mossad operation. He said,”



"Any credible forensics would start by asking: “To what benefit?” Then look to the means, motive and opportunity plus the presence of stable nation-state intelligence inside the US. Other than Israel, who else is a credible candidate? Notice how quickly Israel’s role in the peace process vanished from the news. Now, its Iran, Iran, Iran. To whose benefit? Tel Aviv knows that the phony intelligence on Iraq leads to those skilled at waging war “by way of deception” the Mossad." [5]



Gates goes on to say: “Wikileaks are noteworthy for what’s missing: the absence of any material damaging to Israel goals. But still, Tel Aviv faces an unprecedented peril: transparency. Americans know they were duped. And Israel rightly fears that Americans will soon realize by whom.”



In the most recent development, US Senator Joseph Lieberman along with Senator Diane Feinstein, is seeking to have Wikileaks founder Julian Assange prosecuted under an antiquated and highly controversial law known as the Espionage Act. Sounding the alarm on this approach in an article published by the Huffington Post (Espionage Act: How the Government Can Engage in Serious Aggression Against the People of the United States, Dec.10, 2010) writer Naomi Wolf wrote,



"Presidential candidate Eugene Debs received a ten-year prison sentence in 1918 under the Espionage Act for daring to read the First Amendment in public. The roundup of ordinary citizens -- charged with the Espionage Act -- who were jailed for daring to criticize the government, was so effective in deterring others from speaking up that the Act silenced dissent in this country for a decade. In the wake of this traumatic history, it was left untouched -- until those who wish the same outcome began to try to reanimate it again starting five years ago, and once again, now. Seeing the Espionage Act rise up again is, for anyone who knows a thing about it, like seeing the end of a horror movie in which the zombie that has enslaved the village just won't die."[6]





It is no secret that for years Joseph Lieberman has sought some way to criminalize free speech in respect to a citizen’s right to criticize the government and government allies, most specifically Israel. There have also been rumors that one of the uses that Israel has for Wikileaks is to create a crisis and a cause for emergency measures to be put in place that would supposedly stop the leaks and the danger they allegedly represent to the US government and its interest requiring internet censorship. Now it seems that it might also be used to revive an ancient law, antiquated mostly due to its blatant violation of the US Constitution’s first amendment.



Also, none of us are likely to ever forget former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel’s’ remark that no crisis should ever go unexploited. In respect to the Wikileaks leaks, it seems that for whatever reason Wiki leaks, its leaks have served more than the cause of transparency.

[1] USA Today, Wikileaks actions: An act of cyberwar? http:/www.usatoday.com/clearprint/?1292293292303

[2] Jonathan M. Seidl, “AG Holder says Wikileaks under criminal investigation” www.theblaze.com/ stories/holder-says-wikileaks-under-criminal-investigation/

[3] PBS Interview: “The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media”, cited at Global Research; www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?content=viewArticles&codes=20101212articleID=22378

[4] http:/www.worldbulliten.net.news/_print .php?id=66903

[5] Ibid.

[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1394_b_795001.html

NAMAW Condemns Junduallah attacks on Iran, calls for immediate UNSC action

PRESS RELEASE
10/20/09

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Anisa Abd el Fattah
NAMAW
anisa@namaw.org

National Muslim Woman's organization condemns terrorist attacks on Iran, calls upon UN Security Council to intervene and end all provocations for war against Iran.
Washington DC-Oct.20,2009

The National Association of Muslim American Women(NAMAW), the United State's first and only Muslim woman's pro-life and pro-family organization condemns the recent Jundallah attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran, and calls upon the UN Security Council to intervene immediately to end all acts of provocation aimed at provoking war against Iran.

"We see this as an attempt to push Iran into retaliation and a proxy war with groups operating out of Pakistan," says NAMAW Chairwoman Anisa Abd el Fattah. Abd el Fattah went further, saying: "Failing to get outright US and EU approval for an Israeli or US attack on Iran, we see a new strategy for war. This strategy would provoke Iran into a proxy war with Western funded terrorist groups like Jundullah in Pakistan and the MKO, which has found sanctuary in Europe after being removed from Europe's list of terrorist organizations." "It is our position", said Abd el Fattah, "that these attacks represent an attempt to open a new battlefield in the so called war on terrorism, which many Muslims and others are convinced is merely a Western war against Islam and Muslim countries. Since Israel and its neoconservative supporters in the US, could not get US or EU approval for an Israeli attack on Iran under the false allegation of an Iranian nuclear weapon's program that threatens Israel, these interests seemingly have acted to attack Iran through a proxy. We ask Iran to be patient and not provoked, and to give time for the international institutions to carry out their obligation to do what is necessary to protect innocent civilian life from such attacks and to preserve peace."

We are also calling upon the UNSC to take the steps necessary to address this criminal act against the people of Iran, and to end all such criminal activity against Iran. The UNSC must act to prevent a proxy war that will likely escalate into a full blown war between Iran and the West, and possibly World War III. NAMAW is also calling upon all anti-war NGOs and organizations to step up their activism and to demand that an immediate investigation into these attacks be initiated in preparation for holding those who are responsible accountable before the International Criminal Court.

Finally, NAMAW is calling upon Muslims throughout the world to avoid being exploited by those who claim to be Islamic groups, but who act in the interest of the enemies of Islam. "We should not allow our personal sentiments or religious differences to cause us to assist our enemies as they escalate their war on the Muslim world. We must be wise," said NAMAW's Chairwoman. "The Qur'an teaches us to condemn injustice, even it causes us to be against our own selves. We must not allow the common enemy of Muslims everywhere, to use such crimes to split the international Muslim community and to turn us one against the other. We must stand steadfast for justice, and discourage internecine Muslim conflicts at all costs. We should have learned from our enemy's strategy in Iraq, not to allow sectarianism to split and destroy Muslims.

Until Muslims have functional international institutions of our own to protect our interests, we must encourage the international institutions that exist to act for the benefit of mankind, and to avoid war and to punish illegal and unjust acts of violence. We are also calling upon all Muslim organizations and institutions throughout the world to condemn this criminal attack on Iran and demand an end to all Muslim against Muslim violence.

We send our sincere condolences to the people of Iran as they mourn their losses and express our deep regret over these unfortunate events. Our hearts go out to them in their grief. May God guide and protect us all.

Who do we talk to?

The ongoing debate over whether or not the US should negotiate with Iran, Syria and Hamas is not really a debate about US security. It is rather a debate about who is right, those who feel that the US should ride shot gun through the Middle East for Israel, staring down and blowing up everyone that Israel doesn’t like, or feels threatened by, or who disagrees with AIPAC or the other Jewish American organizations that are dictating US foreign and also our domestic policies, or those who feel that Israel as an ally has no greater meaning than any other country as a US ally, and that US interests, and not Israeli interests should be our first and only policy priorities.

Considering that most of us realize, probably during adolescence, that we must talk to one another, even when we dislike one another, it seems strange that the leaders of one of the world’s most powerful, and technologically advanced countries would be arguing about whether or not we should use diplomacy or be limited only to war as a means to settle disputes. God spoke to Satan, even after Satan had sinned, and misled Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. Jesus spoke to Satan even as his faith was being tested by God in the desert. Perhaps these metaphors symbolize the truth that words are a form of power when spoken as truth, which could be why God used words, such as revealed books, more often than lightening strikes, tornadoes and earthquakes to get his points across. For those who don’t believe in God, the metaphor might symbolize the idea that people, and not weapons are the true powers on earth, since God has subjected all things in the earth to His stewards, except other human beings. Human beings belong exclusively to God.

It’s too bad that we have not been allowed to understand what the human being really is, and our potential inherent power, which is the spirit of God manifest within each of us. If we did understand such things, there would be no arguments about talking to enemies rather than merely killing them. We would understand that the consequence of talking is far more powerful and empowering than the consequences of killing which is absolutely debilitating and destructive for all involved. Israel is learning this the hard way. No matter how many Palestinians they kill, they have not been able to successfully cleanse Palestine of Arabs and Muslims. What they have managed to become is one of the most hated and distrusted countries on earth, and even with the trillions of dollars and military weapons and aide they receive they have no equivalent achievements to boast of.

Of course it would be foolish to expect mere human beings to act like God. I only mention God and Jesus since they represent absolute Godly perfection, and the lesser human perfection. It seems strange that the neo-cons, who give the appearance that they are a God loving people, closely aligned with the religious right, who supposedly know, understand and live the Bible to a greater degree than any of us so-called infidels, goyim living in husks and sinners, have ignored these very basic but meaningful truths about God and Jesus, and their dialogues with their enemies Perhaps this is due the fact that there were no billions of dollars at stake for either Jesus or God, and no government appointments, political power, or an Israeli lobby to fear.



In my humble opinion, neither Barak Obama, nor Hillary Clinton have demonstrated that they understand the real meaning and power of diplomacy as a standard methodology, used those who desire righteousness in the ongoing battle of good versus evil. Neither will admit, even though US intelligence stated emphatically that Iran's nuclear program was destroyed, while Iran says that no program ever existed, that there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. Neither have been able to say that Israel must abide by the laws, same as we expect of any country. neither can say that Israel must end its ethic cleansing and genocide in Palestine, and its illegal occupation. Why wont the presidential candidates or even our President and Secretray of State demand a mutual cease-fire between Israel and Palestine? Could it be because they believe that with time, Israel will simply kill off the Palestinians and no cease fire is needed?

Moses, who led the slaves to freedom from captivity in Egypt, spoke to Pharaoh and continued to call him to repentance, and God. He never spoke of killing Pharaoh, even though Pharaoh often spoke of killing of Moses. Knowledgeable and wise men and women understand that when we have reached a point where taking life is our only option that we have failed in some way and that we will be held accountable for the price of that spilled blood. We must remember that every human being belongs to God, and He is taking a toll, and also taking an account.

Hamas, Syria, Palestine, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Iran are all organizations and groups of people. They are not ideas. They have a different view of life than some other people, but they also have a view of life that is shared by billions of other people, people who have a right to exist and to hold a view different than the neo-con, and Israeli worldview. Ther lives, like all other life is sacred to God, and should also be sacred to us. Israeli and Jewish is not superior. The idea of superiority was introduced to the world by Satan, and it caused God not only to cast him out the Garden, but also to doom Satan to eternal damnation and destruction. Should we imitate him?

If change is to come, it will require more than mere political changes. We must open our hearts and ears to new and different ideas. Like God and Jesus, we must listen, and to ask questions, even when we feel we know the answer. Imagine the arrogance of one imperfect human, saying to another imperfect human that he or she cannot speak to them until they make certain adjustments in their thinking, or behavior. Let’s pray that on the Day of Judgment that God will not have adopted the neo-con non-engagement policy, because if He does, we will all be lost. In fact, we need not imagine that the day of Judgment fits John Hagge’s tormented description of Armageddon, where only he and Israeli Jews (only those who reject Judaism and accept Hagee’s Jesus) will be raptured. Every day is a Day of Judgment because the die is cast with each day’s passing, and God is judging us and punishing and rewarding us each day.

We cannot change the world without changing ourselves. Having humility and learning to hear and speak again to the rest of humanity might be a perfect place to start the process of chaging ourselves, since once we really hear what they have to say we might realize that when it comes to the bottom line, we are all saying the same thing, but perhaps in different ways.