RE: Glenn Greenwald's Salon expose of the Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo & WikiLeaks affair
Quote: 3 July 2010
wikileaks-acts.htm Wikileaks Activists Ongoing Concerns June 30, 2010
wikileaks-fish.htm Assange is preparing to do a Fischer June 25, 2010
wikileaks-auth.htm Wikileaks Insider Authentication June 19, 2010
wikileaks-blow.htm Wikileaks Terrible Funding Blow June 18, 2010
wikileaks-costs.htm Wikileaks Costs June 15, 2010
wikileaks-dogs.htm Wikileaks Will Throw Manning to the Dogs June 14, 2010
wikileaks-funds.htm Wikileaks Funding Drive May 16, 2010
wikileaks-dream.htm Wikileaks-Snake Oil or Just a Hackers Wet Dream? April 19, 2010
A sends via PGPboard, 3 July 2010:
Where Is WIKILEAKS Money Mr. Assange?
WIKILEAKS internal structure is becoming more of a closed shop than ever. What really is beginning to concern us is the increasing lack of accounting for donations received from internet donors. There is absolutely no accounting in terms of monies received and expenditures. In addition to this, Assange is the only person with direct access to WIKILEAKS funds. The lack of large donations is beginning to expose WIKILEAKS to undesirable political influence. WIKILEAKS is receiving keep alive donations from the Movement Party in Iceland. This is a small group of left wing politicians in the Icelandic parliament. Sooner or later it will be payback time. And payback will be in the form of political bias in WIKILEAKS output.
Our (ACTIVISTS) internal estimates put Assange's personal expenditure including business class air travel, accommodation and personal expenses at $52,000 from April 1st 2010 to July 1st 2010.
We must engage a firm of accountants to publish our accounts, expenditures and liabilities. Many reputable NGO's operating in difficult and threatening political environments routinely do this, whilst protecting both their staff and donor base.
Assange cannot rely upon the never ending largess of the internet community. Cracks in the gloss are already evident.
Where is WIKILEAKS Money Mr. Assange?
In more ways than one Mr. Assange; the buck stops with you..
Authentication Code Follows
Quote: 2 July 2010. Adrián Lamo responds:
28 June 2010
Stephanie interview: http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-views.htm
PGPboard references: http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-fish.htm
A sends 28 June 2010:
Thanks for publishing your interview with Stephanie. Granted it is a bit harsh -- but what you said is about journalism is entirely true, and I'm glad you said it. I decided to write in because I wanted to share my thoughts on the Wikileaks case.
First, through contacts I do not want to go into, I have crossed paths with Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen. They have reputations in the hacker community as being untrustworthy. Lamo in particular. Lamo's name is synonymous with both 'idiot' and 'narc'. When Lamo was arrested previously, he called up any hackers he had contact with, and asked them for information about their activities for a 'book he was writing'. I know this from primary sources. Obviously what had happened is that Lamo had offerred to cooperate with the feds in exchange for his assistance in giving the Feds information on other more competant hackers. No book was ever published.
Lamo has a long history of working with feds and spooks, and has an insatiable desire for getting his name in the press. He was in a mental hospital shortly before his latest 'news break' in the Manning case -- an act of pure coincidence if we are to believe the official story. I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds recruited Lamo for whatever is going on with this Wikileaks operation, considering he is easily manipulated and has a deep psychological need for attention, unburdened by the constraints of ordinary human morality.
So I'm saying, I agree -- this whole thing is fishy. I immediately became suspect of all my previous assumptions regarding Wikileaks once I realized that Lamo was directly connected to the Bradley Manning arrest. Why would any whistleblower in their right mind contact Adrian Lamo? His name is a joke among hackers. Just saying it in the presence of some hackers might induce laughter. So like I said, this looks more and more like a covert operation. It simply does not make sense for Manning to contact Adrian Lamo.
I keep thinking about the 'leaked' report on destroying Wikileaks from Army Counterintelligence. I want to propose two theories regarding Wikileaks after thinking about this at length:
Theory #1 -- 'Legitimate but Untrustworthy'
1) Wikileaks is indeed a legitimate outlet, poorly run by an spendthrift and egotistical hacker (Assange). If this is the case, then whoever is feeding you 'internal' information via PGPboard is a probably a spook intending to seed doubt, foster division, and ultimately destroy the organizations fundraising ability. It is less likely, but possible, that your 'mole' on PGPboard is legitimate. Very difficult to tell. If the 'mole' is legitimate, then Wikileaks must become transparent in order to survive. Either way, in this 'Legitimate but Untrustworthy' theory, the spooks are following the game plan from the Army Counterintelligence report, and are trying to destroy Wikileaks -- perhaps from the inside. Exactly 'how' Manning, Lamo, and Poulsen relate to the spooks is a question which I have not yet resolved.
Theory #2 -- 'Controlled Opposition'
Wikileaks is run as 'controlled opposition', with or without Assange's knowledge. Perhaps he is an unwilling dupe. Either way, if this theory is correct, the Army Counterintelligence report does not make sense -- unless Wikileaks is a 'deep black' type program run by, or somehow indirectly controlled by, intelligence assets.
If this theory is actually the case, here are some potential purposes for running Wikileaks as 'controlled opposition':
A) Act as a 'honeypot' to catch real leakers and sympathisers (those who leak documents and donate money).
B) Gain as much media credibility and exposure as possible, so that everyone knows what 'Wikileaks' is.
C) At some point, implode the organization in high-profile manner -- in order to send 'chilling effects' throughout society -- amplified worldwide by the transmission channels of the mass media.
If #2 is correct then the guy feeding you information via PGPboard is again, a spook, with the purpose of enabling covert actors (read: his bosses) to better control the implosion of the organization, as well as the manipulation of the public.