2011-01-14 Wall Street Journal: Treasury cannot sanction WikiLeaks or Julian Assange

In response to Rep. Peter King, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, who had demanded that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange be placed on a blacklist maintained by the US Treasury Department, a department representative said today, "We do not have evidence at this time as to Julian Assange or Wikileaks meeting criteria under which [Treasury] may designate persons and place them on the [sanctions list]."

Read more

NO evidence NO sanctions

It looks like Julians insurance is paying off! way to go WikiLeaks. Truth is on your side.

Given most of the cables

Given most of the cables released so far show nothing more exciting than state department officials doing their job - vaguely interesting at times, but unlikely to cause resignations - you have to kind of wonder what is in this insurance file that can make governments so weak at the knees. It ALMOST makes you want the CIA to go ahead and assassinate him, so we can find out.


interesting observation, little grey rabbit. First, boredom. Then, vaguely interesting, a fud sowing term. a vaugue wondering. an ALMOST. a go ahead. a murder, for curiosity's sake.

ALMOST makes me sort of wonder who You work for.

Or towards.

I don't know about anybody else, but I wish you would spread your particular brand of cheer elsewhere. Just an opinion.

Cheers, little grey rabbit.

Me? I work for the CIA. It

Me? I work for the CIA. It doesn't pay very well, but with government you always know you have job security and then there is the pension.

We are secretly terrified of the insurance file and are moving heaven and earth to try and discredit it.
Actually, and I will just throw this out there. If you read the complete chatlogs of Manning and Lamo that are held on wired.com you will see Manning talks of a video like the collateral murder video which wikileaks apparently has not managed to decrypt. I have wondered if perhaps the insurance file was an attempt by Wikileaks to see if ANYBODY could decrypt it by waving it around as a challenge on the internet.

You point to a nonexistent resource

>"the complete chatlogs of Manning and Lamo that are held on wired.com"

No such thing. Wired refuses to publish them. So "If you read..." has no meaning, as one cannot read what one cannot access.

Is this grammatical construction intended to lead us to believe that because (if true) you work for the CIA you have had access to, and read these purported chat logs? If you have why not just plainly say so? If you haven't, then what the hell are you talking about.

Jesus. No wonder the CIA is useless for it's ostensible purposes. Judging from this, their message passing and grammatical skills need serious improvement.

I have an idea: Why not become a credible commenter, and publish these alleged chat logs that You have, here on WLCentral, in your response to this comment?

We'll all wait...

Good Golly, I'm only a lowly

Good Golly, I'm only a lowly Government disinformation officer. I don't have access to top level intelligence like Corporal Manning managed to access with peculiar ease.

What I do know is here

(2:15:57 PM) Manning: they also caught wind that he had a video… of the Gharani airstrike in afghanistan, which he has, but hasn’t decrypted yet… the production team was actually working on the Baghdad strike though, which was never really encrypted
(2:16:22 PM) Manning: he’s got the whole 15-6 for that incident… so it wont just be video with no context
(2:16:55 PM) Manning: but its not nearly as damning… it was an awful incident, but nothing like the baghdad one
(2:17:59 PM) Manning: the investigating officers left the material unprotected, sitting in a directory on a centcom.smil.mil
(2:18:03 PM) Manning: server
(2:18:56 PM) Manning: but they did zip up the files, aes-256, with an excellent password… so afaik it hasn’t been broken yet
(2:19:12 PM) Manning: 14+ chars…

What I am suggesting is this may have become the "insurance file" which at 1.4 gigabytes is about the right size.

As you may have guessed I think the top people at wikileaks have tendancies towards charlatanism. Wikileaks is a good idea and I am sure it has a lot of good people working for it. But it will only ever work if people working in companies, think tanks and governments think it is a reliable and responsible recipient of leaks.

At least that is the briefing I got from my CIA handler.

Oh thank goodness!

Oh thank goodness!

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer