The Wikileaks Question

[jingofever]

Last year Wikileaks released a partial donor list that somebody 'leaked' to them after they bungled an e-mail to their donors.

[Cosmic Cowbell]

I would think that WL doesn't even know or want to know the identity of anyone giving them money.

I'm fairly sure that's the case. However, I suspect down the road that it will be this particular lack of transparency that the US will use to bring its prosecution forward. Basically the claim will be that WikiLeaks is funded in part by terrorist organizations\nations hostile to US interest (take your pick) through surreptitious donations and that by publishing or disseminating secret US documents, they are aiding and abetting terrorism/hostile foreign interest for monetary gain (payroll). What Wikileaks wants or doesn't want (the ignorance is bliss defense) will be moot.

[Simulist]

The government of the United States doesn't possess even that low level of nobility.

Remember: the United States doesn't think it needs a legal reason to detain someone indefinitely — it just does whatever it damn-well pleases.

[Plutonia]

I'm not saying it's right or wrong Sim, I'm saying it dilutes somewhat the up until now noble ideal of the "all volunteer" no ties to funding organization.

JA re-structuring WL to resemble a legitimate news organization, is my guess. On the advice of his lawyers and in preparation of fighting extradition perhaps.

Secrecy is poison to democracy.

But it is often the grease which facilitates diplomacy in the world.

That's absurd. Facilitates a gangster organization (the US Military Industrial Cryptofascist Financial Scam Artist Family) in Taking Whatever They Want and Owning Everything, Forever, 'smore like.

The position of the US State Dept is indefensible ie illegal wars, fabrication of evidence to justify foreign invasion, heads of state shamelessly profiteering, extra-judicial kidnappings, detention and torture, lies lies lies etc, etc forever.

[JackRiddler]

.

Wikileaks in its current form has acted as a direct answer to this:



That's pretty much where the history books will begin the chapter on Wikileaks. Consider what was accomplished by the United States delegation to the United Nations on Feb 6, 2003, thanks to secrecy. Thanks to the power to lie, and to make reality conform to the lie, because you know something no one else does.

Any residual legitimacy the State Department may have ever possessed -- and it was reputation, not reality -- ended on that day. They have no rights to any secrets, or to continue existing as an organization. That's true also of the current version, as long as there is no justice for the crimes the organization has committed. I'm speaking what I think is the moral truth, not anything we'll be able to impose, or that could be imposed by anything short of a revolution. But the only thing they have a moral right to is an expectation of due process at their trials.

.

[Plutonia]

...
However, Assange said that WikiLeaks will release top secret American files related to Israel.
...
these files were classified as top secret.
...
Most of the files related to Mossad are classified as top secret ...
...
There 2,500 files related to Mossad and I have read only 1,000. So I don’t know about everything,

This is what caught my eye in that Al Jezeera interview. Clearance on SIPRNet does not go as high as Top Secret, the highest level of secrecy classification:

The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is "a system of interconnected computer networks used by the United States Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information (up to and including information classified SECRET) Link

So, if JA is stating that accurately, and it's likely that he is because, as we've already discussed Israel doesn't like SIPRNet for communication with Washington, then that's the first shout-out I've seen for this level of leak. That's the whole enchilada. From what I understand Bradley Manning didn't have Top Secret clearance, so these docs would have come from someone else? I could be wrong about that. Any thoughts?

[vanlose kid]

...
However, Assange said that WikiLeaks will release top secret American files related to Israel.
...
these files were classified as top secret.
...
Most of the files related to Mossad are classified as top secret ...
...
There 2,500 files related to Mossad and I have read only 1,000. So I don’t know about everything,

This is what caught my eye in that Al Jezeera interview. Clearance on SIPRNet does not go as high as Top Secret, the highest level of secrecy classification:

The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is "a system of interconnected computer networks used by the United States Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information (up to and including information classified SECRET) Link

So, if JA is stating that accurately, and it's likely that he is because, as we've already discussed Israel doesn't like SIPRNet for communication with Washington, then that's the first shout-out I've seen for this level of leak. That's the whole enchilada. From what I understand Bradley Manning didn't have Top Secret clearance, so these docs would have come from someone else? I could be wrong about that. Any thoughts?

same thought, yeah. not part of the cables.

*

[barracuda]

What would have been truly startling is any acknowledgment in the cables that John Garang, former South Sudanese rebel leader, was assassinated by his CIA and/or Mossad handlers as punishment two weeks after decreeing the dissolution of the CIA and Mossad-backed Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, ending the US and Israel sponsored bloody civil war and joining the Sudanese government as Omar Bashir's Vice President of Sudan.

[AlicetheKurious]

Hey, barracuda, I was joking: the timely and incredibly convenient death of John Garang will probably remain a mystery forever, or at least until long after Sudan has been torn to shreds, another resource-rich African "failed state" in need of "liberation". Too bad for Sudanese people.

[AlicetheKurious]

Hey, someone else noticed:

Julian Assange has stated on al Jazeera that he will release some 3,700 secret (and even “top-secret”) documents pertaining to Israel in 6 months.

Why would he wait if he had “truth” that needed to be revealed to the world?
...

Assange’s new, unexplainable, 6 month deadline creates just enough of a pending existential threat to the state of Israel to justify AIPAC influenced U.S. congressmen to pass a draconian internet censoring bill in the same vein as the U.S. Patriot Act.

This serves not only the state of Israel, but also the U.S. state department. After Hillary Clinton’s failed efforts to frame North Korea for the sinking of the Cheonan, it is in the best interest of the imperial U.S. that the freedom of the internet and the rapid exchange of information is curbed. This is ultimately the point of the Wikileaks psyop and at least now we have a definitive time-line.

(The following Julian Assange quotes taken from an interview on al Jazeera and published by Information Clearinghouse)

topic: holding “leaks” pertaining to Israel for 6 months



“There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel. In the next six months we intend to publish more files depending on our sources,”

“We will publish 3700 files and the source is the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Prime Minister Netanyahu was traveling to Paris to talk to the US ambassador there. You will see more information about that in six months.”



Why would Assange hold important leaks about Israel for 6 months while knowingly allowing establishment newspapers to publish misleading information about North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and nearly every other Middle East country immediately?

topic: Assange aware that papers he gave “leaks” to are filtering the truth about Israel

files pertaining to the 2006 Lebanon War (Condi Rice’s war) –

”Yes there is some information about that and these files were classified as top secret.



files pertaining to the assassination of a Palestinian leader -

“Yes there are some indication to this and may be some special reports published by newspapers. Mossad agents used Australian, British and European passports to travel to Dubai and there are diplomatic files about that.”





“The Guardian, El-Pais and Le Monde have published only two percent of the files related to Israel due to the sensitive relations between Germany, France and Israel. Even New York Times could not publish more due to the sensitivities related to the Jewish community in the US,”



Assange is blaming these entities for filtering the “leaks” yet these cables are in his possession and he could do with them as he pleases. He’s allowing this to happen. Why? If getting out the “truth” is what Wikileaks is all about, why this convoluted and manipulated process?

topic: Official U.S. funding??!?



“We were the biggest institution receiving official funding from the US but after we released a video tape about killing people in cold blood in Iraq in 2007, the funding stopped and we had to depend on individuals for finance.”



What “official funding” is he talking about? Has this money been in place since even before Wikileaks started officially leaking anything? If you read the John Young emails, that would certainly seem to be the case.

Conclusion

It is my sincere hope that this latest ploy by Julian Assange finally exposes this Wikileaks psyop to journalists like Pilger and Greenwald.

By giving this arbitrary and pointless deadline, by creating an existential threat which can only benefit AIPAC lobbyists, Assange has finally exposed his purpose in such a way as there cannot be any more question as to what that purpose ultimately is: the end of the free and open internet.

——

UPDATE: A Raw Story headline completely misrepresents the substance of the article.



Israel destroyed Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, leaked cable reveals



But the facts within the article show us how the Wikileaks psyop is still working to the advantage of Israel by promoting old, tired propaganda as “fact”.



“On September 6, 2007, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor built by Syria secretly, apparently with North Korea’s help,” then US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice wrote in the cable published in Yediot Aharonot newspaper.

“Our intelligence experts are convinced that the attack targeted by the Israelis is in fact an atomic reactor of the same type built by North Korea in Yongbyon,” she wrote in the message dated April 2008.

“We have good reason to believe that the reactor was not built for peaceful purposes,” she said, adding the attack came only weeks before the reactor was to become operational. Raw Story



Here is some “truth” being revealed by Wikileaks - a statement by Condi Rice which exonerates Israel for the aggressive and illegal strike on a Syrian facility in 2007 which also serves the dual purpose of implicating North Korea at a time when the U.S. and South Korea are doing everything they can to create a reason to “regime change” that nation.

This cable exposes nothing that we didn’t already know about the 2007 attack on the Syrian facility and actually promotes the previously debunked U.S. and Israeli claim** that it was a reactor being made for weapons manufacturing purposes.

Clearly this is just more pro-Israel, anti-North Korea propaganda. Link

** Phantoms over Syria: eveything Israel wants you to know about its secret airstrike.

PS, Both of these statements are also false readings:

Once again, it was Assange's choice to give THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA the exclusive right to redact and select what to publish.

They do not have an exclusive right and the claim is everything will be published. That process has begun (Wikileaks.ch includes cables that haven't been in the media) and the cables are clearly spreading to newspapers outside the original group (Al-Arabiya, presumably Afterposten).

Sure, six months from now, according to him. Not today, not tomorrow, not next week.

Assange's "In the next six months" != "six months from now," as it falsely interpreted.

Now we're quibbling about what "in" means? OK, even if you insist, for your own purposes, on interpreting "in" to mean "within", it still doesn't answer the question WHY WAIT AT ALL? The inflammatory disinfo about Iran, North Korea, Syria, Turkey, etc. is already out there and blaring in the headlines. A lot can happen within six months, and if he's not playing a sick game, any smart strategist could tell you it's foolhardy to give that much advance warning and give your opponents time to mobilize and act before you do. "Top Secret" documents to be released WITHIN six months? Could he possibly be that stupid? I doubt it.

[JackRiddler]

.

Of course the meaning of words is important! Assange said in the next six months. Anyone who turns that into "in six months" is wrong. That is not a "quibble." It is a misinterpretation, and in Duff's case used maliciously.

Alice, in the last month or so, citing such greats as Duff and willyloman and Tarpley, you have advanced "Wikileaks Is Israel" and/or "Wikileaks is a psyop" (somehow, some way, damn it) by every means, without discrimination. Unrelated rhetoric and argument are stretched to fit that conclusion. When the leaks don't reveal the evidence of crimes you want to see, it's shows that Wikileaks is Israel. When the leaks encourage criticism of Israel, you usually ignore it. If you acknowledge the leaks reveal something bad about Mossad, then that's because it's just a cover-up for Wilikeaks being Israel. When the cables show the State Department telling pro-imperialist lies to itself, it's more proof Wikileaks is Israel. If New York Times spins the cables to support a pro-Israeli or Iranian line, even though it's not Wikileaks doing that, that's more evidence against Wikileaks. If the US government endeavors to suppress the press or restrict the Internet, that's the fault of Wikileaks and also somehow proves Wikileaks is Israel. If Assange is walking free, he must be doing so with special protection from the Mossad. If Assange is arrested, then it's either a trap or even more suspicious because he's not dead yet. If Wikileaks pursues a slow-release strategy with all of the cables (such that only 0.7 percent have been published so far), then this can only have one reason, no need to guess: to benefit Israel (even though 2 percent of Israel-related cables have been released, and we've just been given a preview of coming attractions). In your latest post you've even set it up that if Israel commits its next crime in the territories, that will also be something to hold against Wikileaks!

Of course, this is in a much larger pattern of years, of dozens of related claims from you that find an Israeli origin in anything you wish. Israel is not just the illegal occupier of Palestinian territory and a violator of human rights and international law. That will not do. Rather, you have told us that Israel scripts anything bad in American foreign policy, always working against "American interests"; that Israel killed Kennedy and caused the US to invade Vietnam; that Israel alone did 9/11 and is the sole reason for the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions; that these are all things that the reasonable non-Zionists among the managers of US empire would have never done, that only Zionists were responsible.

That's the context in which anyone who has followed your work will view your latest stuff about Wikileaks. This record of what you've written, of disregard for evidence and logic, and of an unchanging master narrative that informs nearly all of your political writings, can be read on this site! You've never gone back on any of it, you've often reiterated. But at other times you try to "start at zero," as though none of this came before. Thus we are expected to spend the days producing point-by-point rebuttals for every new Duff text, even if it's just repeats of the same nonsense that was rebutted before, and even if he's been exposed beyond any reasonable measure as a dishonest actor.

Let me note that when the disinformation from the Syrian guy completely fabricating quotes from Domscheit-Berg was published, you had the foresight to avoid hyping that one, as something that would be quickly and inevitably exposed as a lie. However, you are less circumspect about Assange quoted (on ICH, in translation from an Arabic article!) as saying, "We were the biggest institution receiving official funding from the US but after we released a video tape about killing people in cold blood in Iraq in 2007, the funding stopped and we had to depend on individuals for finance." (http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e27119.htm). Besides that nothing in that back-translated sentence makes sense, there he is, freely "admitting" that the USG finances him, as any such recipient of USG cash would do, on an Arab TV station: and, apparently, Wikileaks is bigger than the CIA itself!*

In this latest post, you've turned to a critique about the speed of the releases that several of us were advancing many pages ago. Should I argue now against what I argued then, because you've found it as your latest tactic? As usual, the critique of the speed is supposed to somehow buttress the only case you ever want to make: that Wikileaks is already completely proven as a psyop, and that anyone who doesn't salute your conclusion is either one of THEM or a complete fool. I don't really care. It doesn't matter if given elements of your case are true in themselves or not, not when they don't actually suggest the conclusions you torture out of them.

You exposed yourself long ago.**

...

PS - With regard to the Note above. (*) The botch-up that portrays Assange as saying the US government finances WIkileaks directly probably derives from statements by Wikileaks decrying that "it has had its funding blocked and that it is the victim of financial warfare by the US government." See already back in October:

WikiLeaks loses funding, blames US government
Posted by Heather Holm on October 15, 2010 at 4:27 PM

WikiLeaks believes that it is paying for (or rather, not being paid for) its military leak.... Moneybookers, an Internet payment company registered in Britain that collects WikiLeaks donations, emailed the company to say its account was closed down because it was on an official US watchlist and Australian government blacklist."

PPS - Is Assange "that stupid" as to announce what he intends to leak in advance? What if he were, and who cares? So far he's announced every move in advance, and then made it as announced. (Future results not necessarily guaranteed.) Supposedly everything he's announcing is in "History Insurance," anyway.

.

[JackRiddler]

.

Where to research the cables (best as I know)

1. Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables
Of the newspaper sites, in English go with The Guardian. They are a full partner and have been doing constant, massive coverage. (The Times site is a joke and shamelessly spun to minimize releases and maximize pro-war propaganda.) This is not an endorsement, it's merely a fact that the Guardian has been been best so far.

2. Wikileaks new home: http://wikileaks.ch / (go to "cablegate" section)

3. Search-able database of cables that is synched with Wikileaks releases: http://www.dazzlepod.com/cable /

4. Wikileaks the forum: http://www.wikileaksforum.net /

5. Crowdjournalizing the raw cables... very slowly: http://operationleakspin.org /

On RI, the cable story agglomeration thread:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30359

This DU thread is gathering a lot of cable-story links:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... =439x65699

Perhaps the best article on Wikileaks so far:

Wikileaks and the Worldwide Information War
Power, Propaganda, and the Global Political Awakening
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research, December 6, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=22278

Thanks to plutonia for several of those.

.

[JackRiddler]

.

This was already back on Dec. 7, did we miss it?

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... egislation

Senators Unveil anti-Wikileaks Law


Source: The Hill

Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced a bill Thursday aimed at stopping WikiLeaks by making it illegal to publish the names of military or intelligence community informants.

Ensign accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his "cronies" of hindering America's war efforts and creating a "hit list" for U.S. enemies by outing intelligence sources.

“Our sources are bravely risking their lives when they stand up against the tyranny of al Qaeda, the Taliban and murderous regimes, and I simply will not stand idly by as they become death targets because of Julian Assange," Ensign said. "Let me be very clear, WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.”

Assange has been under fire in recent weeks thanks to his site's dissemination of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, some of which have proved embarrassing to the Obama administration because of their frank tone. Attorney General Eric Holder recently pledged to close gaps in the law that allow sites like WikiLeaks to continue to operate.

.

Meanwhile, some countries apparently have not so much dirt to hide...

Norway's top diplomat finds WikiLeaks "fascinating"


Source: Reuters

Dec 23 (Reuters) - Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said secret U.S. documents published by WikiLeaks made "fascinating" reading and are turning the tables on governments used to having the upper hand on the media. "I admit -- it is fascinating to read from parts of the raw material of foreign policy, perhaps especially for us who work in diplomacy every day," Stoere wrote in an article published on his Labour Party's website on Thursday.

"We are like voyeurs who get unexpected access... and it grows even more powerful since it comes from U.S. sources."

Stoere said the WikiLeaks phenomenon had given journalists access to information normally reserved for state officials, providing reporters with an advantage they didn't usually enjoy.

"I have to smile because now the roles between the media and the authorities are almost reversed," he said.

"Now, we in the ministry are asking for access to the press! And we will obviously have to taste our own medicine because there is limited access," Stoere wrote, adding that his request for access to an unpublished WikiLeaks document about Norwegian-Russian relations was denied by Norwegian journalists.

Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten said this week that it had gained hold of all 250,000 leaked U.S. documents, the vast majority of which had not yet been published.

Stoere criticised the "unfaithful" government workers who had leaked the documents but said there was nothing published so far relating to Norway that had surprised him.

(Reporting by Wojciech Moskwa; Editing by Peter Graff)

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6BM1CY20101223

Julian Assange says he could be killed in US jail
From correspondents in London From:AFP December 24, 2010 12:14PM

WIKILEAKS chief Julian Assange says there is a "high chance" he would be killed in a US jail if he were to be extradited from Britain on espionage charges.

The Australian is on bail in Britain fighting a bid by Sweden to extradite him over sex assault claims, but Washington is believed to be considering how to indict him over the leaking of thousands of US diplomatic cables.

Mr Assange told The Guardian it would be "politically impossible" for Britain to send him across the Atlantic, adding that the government of Prime Minister David Cameron would want to show it had not been "co-opted" by Washington.

"Legally the UK has the right to not extradite for political crimes. Espionage is the classic case of political crimes. It is at the discretion of the UK government as to whether to apply to that exception," he said.

He said US authorities were "trying to strike a plea deal" with Bradley Manning, the US army soldier suspected of providing WikiLeaks with the cables.

Mr Assange added that if the United States succeeded in getting him extradited from Britain or Sweden, then there was a "high chance" of him being killed "Jack Ruby-style" in an American prison.

Ruby, a nightclub owner, shot dead Lee Harvey Oswald at a police station in Dallas, Texas days after Oswald was arrested for the assassination of US President John F Kennedy in 1963.

Ruby's alleged links to organised crime sparked conspiracy theories about his involvement in an overall plot surrounding the assassination of Kennedy.

Mr Assange has previously said that he and other WikiLeaks staff have received death threats since the website began to release a cache of about 250,000 secret US State Department cables in November.

The 39-year-old has been staying at a friend's country mansion in eastern England since his release from jail last week on strict bail conditions that include reporting to police daily and wearing an electronic tag.

A court in London is due to hold a full hearing on the Swedish extradition request starting February 7.


http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/ju ... 5975847087

[Plutonia]

Awesome!

The crowdjournos have a spiffy new site to publish their articles on: crowdleak.net

They are looking for translators, if anyone is interested:http://crowdleak.net/news/site-translation-guide/

Wow! Just spotted this one I hadn't seen before - from Crowdleak:

China already succeeded in quantum teleportation

In mid-December 2009, the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in Hefei had academic programs focusing on Math, Physics, Chemistry, Life Sciences, Nuclear Science, Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, Management, Humanities, and a department dedicated to the development of gifted young people.

USTC has 37,000 staff and 40,000 graduate students. USTC oversees two national laboratories: the National Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory and the Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Science at the Microscale (HFNL). HFNL has 95 faculty members and roughly 400 graduate students.

HFNL research focuses on quantum communication, nanoscience, superconductors, spintronics, and cognitive sciences. In the area of quantum communication, HFNL was conducting research in quantum teleportation and free space quantum cryptography that scientists hope will result in “totally secure” communications. USTC also oversees China’s “Program 178,” although they did not describe the nature of this program.

A cursory walk through their labs seemed to indicate they had already succeeded in single-particle quantum teleportation and are now trying to conduct dual-particle quantum teleportation.

# Source: 10BEIJING263

I notice that nowhere in that article does the author actually accuse Israel of anything!!
It's so obvious!
Those students are science-geek Zionist assets!





Also, this new law may be toothless because Wikileaks is careful not to publish the names of informants. Looks like it's a response to the Afghan War diaries, where a few names did slip out, or so I've heard. Or perhaps it's a way to block the release of the key to the encrypted file, so that they can take JA out.

Anyway, it seems surprisingly weak and off the mark.

.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... egislation

Senators Unveil anti-Wikilleaks Law

Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced a bill Thursday aimed at stopping WikiLeaks by making it illegal to publish the names of military or intelligence community informants.

[Plutonia]

Here's another round-up with links a-plenty - wheew! *wipes brow*

On the 25th Day of Wikileaks My Government Gave to Me
by David Swanson

On the first day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: the military in every embassy.

On the second day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: two criminal presidents.

On the third day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: three illegal wars.

On the fourth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: four covered up crimes.

On the fifth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: five plutocracies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

[For complete article features, please see original at War is a Crime here.]

On the sixth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: six sycophants (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

On the seventh day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: seven suicide attacks.

On the eighth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: eight enemy combatants.

On the ninth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me:nine NATO divisions.

On the tenth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: ten years of pollution.

On the eleventh day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: more profits for credit card companies.

On the twelfth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: drug company immunity.

On the thirteenth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: thirteen theocratic thugs.

On the fourteenth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me:yet another war.

On the fifteenth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: fifteen happy followers.

On the sixteenth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: sixteen sadistic sanctions.

On the seventeenth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: seventeen infuriating peace makers.

On the eighteenth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: eighteen months of ignorance.

On the nineteenth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: Bollywood-Pentagon partnerships.

On the twentieth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: corporate muscle for diplomacy.

On the twenty-first day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: black market nukes.

On the twenty-second day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: congressional prostitution.

On the twenty-third day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: twenty-three convicted kidnappers.

On the twenty-fourth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: twenty-four million McDollars.

On the twenty-fifth day of Wikileaks, my government gave to me: killing the messenger.
And 99.25% of the cables were yet to be released.

Kudos to David Swanson for putting that together.