.
Joe H and any other Australians: Is there follow-up in Oz on the story of cable revelations concerning Arbib, Gillard and Rudd? Is the Gillard government feeling any kind of heat or experiencing instability as a result? How do you think Assange would do if he stood for parliament in a friendly district?
.
DrVolin, you present scenarios about possible unknown unknowns. Despite making fun of "Spidey Sense," I have no objections per se to your speculations, because they're not presented as Duff-style ironclad conclusions, and you don't seem tied to an agenda-driven view that will block out any alternative scenario. It's good to keep all the possibilities in mind, as long as you are open to all of the other possibilities and give due to evidence as it arrives.
.
Nordic wrote:To me, this is boiling down to one simple question:
Why does everyone know who Julian Assange is, and nobody knows who Sibel Edmonds is?
With the first, the media coverage is over the top. With the second, it's reluctant and almost non-existent.
That's the question that everyone needs to ask in regards to Assange (the first three letters of his name are ASS) and Wikileaks.
Still? I'm on the fence. Because I don't KNOW anything.
Nordic, what do the last three letters of your six-letter screen name, which constitute a complete syllable, intone when spoken out loud? Should we consider this significant?
What does Sibel Edmonds think? Her site is at
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com. First page currently features this cartoon:
You can read her posts on Wikileaks at
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/?s=wikileaksThis indicates she is a defender of Wikileaks in the same sense that I am unequivocally so: the question of free speech and the freedom to publish and read without being threatened with legal sanctions or extrajudicial death by the likes of Joe Biden and Peter King.
As of Dec. 14, she is withholding "hasty judgement" about the cables releases and questioning Wikileaks' media strategy, meaning the speed and nature of the first releases given the usual "attention curve" of the corporate media. Believe it or not, I agree with much of what she says (and you can read that further up on this thread) and in any case find her position very wise on her part.
Her last post on the subject (Dec. 16) was a criticism of the New York Times:
Sibel Edmonds wrote:I am going to stay true to my pledged position on Wikileaks related topics, and stick with questions rather than hasty analyses and interpretations. I’ve been highly puzzled by the recent position of and statements by the New York Times on Wikileaks Gate. I don’t know whether to view this puzzling change of heart and position in light of appropriately seasonal concepts of miracles, seeing the light, and the eighth wonder of the world, or, more realistically cynical interpretations based on their reputation, history and track record. How does a mindset dictating governmentally correct and approved reportage suddenly change into one that sides with transparency and positive journalistic ethics? This is when it is good to have media outlets and investigative journalists who investigate, analyze, and report on other media channels, editors and reporters. Alas, we ain’t got one; at least not one I’ve been able to find, thus, here I am with my list of questions asking you to hop on board and help me come up with possible explanations.
It wasn’t that long ago that the Times’ infamous editor, along with his superiors in the government and inferiors beneath him on the committee, decided to hold the explosive exposé on NSA’s Warrantless Spying Program. The Times held the story not for one day, not for one week, not for one month, but for over a year. It sat on it, and whether easily or with great difficulty, it sealed its every single reporter’s lips. Together, in a unified fashion, they all sat on this earth-shattering revelation. They served their masters, and threw their weight into highly critical elections. When, after it was way too late, their governmentally sanctioned deed, this journalistically unethical scam, was exposed, they didn’t have much if anything to offer as defense: (FOLLOW LINK FOR MORE)
Nordic, your question: "Why does everyone know who Julian Assange is, and nobody knows who Sibel Edmonds is?"Sibel Edmonds was subjected to gag orders for years. In 2009, she decided to violate these and openly offered her story to the corporate media. As a result, her recollections of criminal case files she saw while during her time as an FBI translator in 2002 -- implicating the major Pentagon neocons of that time (Perle, Feith, et al.) and Denny Hastert in a ring dealing secrets including nuclear secrets to clients like Turkey and Israel -- were published in some detail by the London Times. Her media strategy produced what I would call a relative success, especially given that she did not have the documents, but could only name their identifying numbers and speak from her recollections and notes.
Her story did get out into the World Wide Web with coverage in many outlets abroad, and as a result
tens of millions of people know who Sibel Edmonds is, what her story is, and where the documents that might confirm her story are to be found. The story was not picked up by US corporate media and did not make a splash in the US, which the fault of the media and not hers, or prompt a renewed investigation of the crimes she alleges, which is the fault of the US authorities and not hers, or cause outcry, protests and riots, which is the fault of our civil society including ourselves.
The differences between her case and that of Wikileaks are obvious: the documents are still unavailable, and thus she cannot force the issue by publishing these herself (or quietly passing them on to Wikileaks!). This also minimizes her ability to create a big advance PR and anticipation. Furthermore she has not had a string of prior "hits," as Wikileaks has had with Scientology, Kenya, Kaupthing in Iceland, the Australian Internet censorship list, Collateral Murder and the Iraq/Afghanistan war logs, among other stories that, like it or not, make it into the most successful investigative media organization of recent years. Also a gaping wound to the corporate media, a huge embarrassment and accusation.
Edmonds is not running an effective, international organization that has announced its intent to keep bringing out such material. While the gag orders brought attention to her case, the national security state has yet to declare her a dangerous, continuing threat that must be silenced, as they have with Wikileaks. She is not in the clutches of the legal system of two countries on, to say the least, highly suspect charges. This is probably because such attacks on her would, in her case, revive her story. For now, her story is contained and any authorities who might feel threatened by it are not going to help her get attention by applying repressive measures. In Wikileaks' case, they no longer care about that aspect, because Wikileaks already has secret goods (including, supposedly, the Bank of America documents), and is bringing them out regardless, and the whole world is already watching.
.
