Who is Behind Wikileaks? By Michel Chossudovsky

[Roberto Vignoli <rvignoli at gmail.com>]

Who is Behind Wikileaks?

By Michel Chossudovsky

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

Global Research, December 13, 2010

"World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break 
entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, 
the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, 
but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain 
in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldus Huxley)

Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the 
US government.

Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents 
have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier 
revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining 
to civil liberties and the "militarization of the Homeland" (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the 
"Homeland" in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008)

In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, 
covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and 
Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in 
the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide "further evidence of the Pentagon's role in the systematic 
torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime." (Ibid)

Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has 
provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project.

The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship.

But there more than meets the eye.

Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks.

There are also reports from published email exchanges that Wikileaks had entered into negotiations 
with several corporate foundations for funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland Foundation. ... "We're 
registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered 
as a newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations 
in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give 
their names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities."

Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, 
and the other half from "personal contacts," including "people with some millions who approach 
us...." (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)

At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledges that it was "founded by Chinese dissidents, 
mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South 
Africa".... [Its advisory board] includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee 
communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers." (Wikileaks Leak email 
exchanges, January 2007).

Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows: [Wikileaks will be] "an uncensorable 
version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are 
oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we 
also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their 
own governments and corporations," CBC News - Website wants to take whistleblowing online, January 
11, 2007, emphasis added).

This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in June 2010 interview in the New Yorker:

"Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but 
we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral 
behavior in their own governments and corporations. In an invitation to potential collaborators in 
2006, he wrote, “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and 
Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal 
illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations...." (quoted in WikiLeaks and 
Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added)

Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially bring down many administrations 
that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration." (Ibid)

From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in the former Soviet Union, 
the Middle East and Central Asia was "appealing", i.e. consistent with US foreign policy.

The composition of the Wikileaks team, not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of 
foreign governments, were in line with the practices of US covert operations geared towards 
triggering "regime change".

The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times

Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der 
Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The Economist and 
Time Magazine have also played an important role.

While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, 
the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream 
media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, 
December 8, 2010)

This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of 
an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange.

The important question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of 
released documents to the broader public?

What US foreign policy objectives are being served through this redacting process?

Is Wikileaks part of an awakening of public opinion, of a battle against the lies and fabrications 
which appear daily in the print media and on network TV?

If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the participation and 
collaboration of the corporate architects of media disinformation.

Julian Assange has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An 
incongruous and self-defeating procedure.

America's corporate media and more specifically the New York Times are an integral part of the 
economic establishment, with links to Wall Street, the Washington think tanks, the Council on 
Foreign Relations (CFR).

Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding relationship to the US intelligence 
apparatus, going back to "Operation Mocking Bird", an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special 
Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s.

Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream media was implicated. A role 
was defined and agreed upon for the corporate media not only in the release, but also in the 
selection and editing of the leaks. In a bitter irony, the "professional media" to use Julian 
Assange's words in an interview with The Economist, have been partners in the Wikileaks project from 
the outset.

Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national security intelligence 
establishment have worked closely with Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the 
leaked documents.

In a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner, The New York Times which has consistently promoted media 
disinformation is now being accused of conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for 
manipulating the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:

“I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news 
organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, 
adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether 
they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.” 
(WikiLeaks Prosecution Studied by Justice Department - NYTimes.com, December 7, 2010)

This "redacting" role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief 
Washington correspondent of the NYT:

"[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be 
damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of 
showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if 
they had additional redactions to suggest." (See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of 
Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross: December 
8, 2010, emphasis added).

Yet he also says later in the interview:

"It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out 
and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government." 
(ibid)

"Do it independently of the government" while at the same time "asking them [the US government] if 
they had additional redactions to suggest"?

David E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council 
on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute's Strategy Group which regroups the likes of 
Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John 
Deutch, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive 
director of the 9/11 Commission) (among other prominent establishment figures). (See also F. William 
Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job, Global Research, December 10, 2010).

Several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations interviewed Wikileaks, 
including Time Magazine's Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker's Raffi 
Khatchadurian. (WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)

Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the Rockefeller family in the context 
of a longstanding relationship. The current New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is a 
member of the Council on Foreign Relations, son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur 
Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation. Ethan Bronner, deputy 
foreign editor of The New York Times as well as Thomas Friedman among others are members of the 
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media. 
(Membership Roster - Council on Foreign Relations)

The Embassy and State Department Cables

It should come as no surprise that David E. Sanger and his colleagues at the NYT centered their 
attention on a highly "selective" dissemination of the Wikileaks cables, focussing on areas which 
would support US foreign policy interests: Iran's nuclear program, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and 
Pakistan's support of al Qaeda, China's relations with North Korea, etc. These releases were then 
used as source material in NYT articles and commentary.

The Embassy and State Department cables released by Wikileaks were redacted and filtered. They were 
used for propaganda purposes. They do not constitute a complete and continuous set of memoranda.

From a selected list of cables, the leaks are being used to justify a foreign policy agenda. A case 
in point is Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department 
memos, as well Saudi Arabia's support of Islamic terrorism.

Iran's Nuclear Program

The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign concerning Iran's Weapons of Mass 
Destruction. While the leaked cables are heralded as "evidence" that Iran constitutes a threat, the 
lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program are 
not mentioned, nor is there any mention of them in the leaked cables.

The leaks, once they are funnelled into the corporate news chain, edited and redacted by the New 
York Times, indelibly serve the broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel war 
preparations directed against Iran.

With the regard to "leaked intelligence" and the coverage of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, 
David E. Sanger has played a crucial role. In November 2005, The New York Times published a report 
co-authored by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad entitled "Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to 
Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims".

The article refers to mysterious documents on a stolen Iranian laptop computer which included "a 
series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle" which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian 
produced nuclear weapon:

"In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic 
inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the 
contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.

The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a 
thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a 
long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American 
participants in the meeting.

The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. 
They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear 
program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab 
missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East."(William J. Broad and David 
E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims - New York Times, November 
13, 2005)

These "secret documents" were subsequently submitted by the US State Department to the International 
Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons 
program. They were also used as a pretext to enforce the economic sanctions regime directed against 
Iran, adopted by the UN Security Council.

While their authenticity has been questioned, a recent article by investigative reporter Gareth 
Porter confirms unequivocally that the mysterious laptop documents are fake. (See Gareth Porter, 
Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, 
November 18, 2010)

The drawings contained in the documents leaked by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger do not 
pertain to the Shahab missile but to an obsolete North Korean missile system which was 
decommissioned by Iran in the mid-1990s. The drawings presented by US State Department officials 
pertained to the "Wrong Missile Warhead":

In July 2005, ... Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international 
security, made a formal presentation on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to 
the agency's leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from the documents on the screen, 
giving special attention to the series of technical drawings or "schematics" showing 18 different 
ways of fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or "warhead" of Iran's 
medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3. When IAEA analysts were allowed to study the 
documents, however, they discovered that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the 
analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military in favor of a new, improved design. 
The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar "dunce cap" shape of the original North Korean 
No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s. ... The laptop documents had depicted the 
wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned. ... (Gareth Porter, op cit, emphasis added)

David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with Wikileaks was also instrumental in the New York Times 
"leak" of what Gareth Porter describes as fake intelligence.(Ibid)

While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media coverage, it invalidates outright 
Washington's assertions regarding Iran's alleged nuclear weapons.

In a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not 
only to dismiss the issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce Washington's claim that Iran is 
developing nuclear weapons. A case in point is a November 2010 article co-authored by David E. 
Sanger, which quotes the Wikileaks cables as a source;

"Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a [Wikileaks] cable dated Feb. 24 
of this year.... (WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Armed by North Korea - NYTimes.com, November 28, 2010).

These missiles are said to have the "capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily 
reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s 
development of intercontinental ballistic missiles." (Ibid, emphasis added).

Wikileaks, Iran and the Arab World

The released wikileaks cables have also being used to create divisions between Iran on the one hand 
and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the other:

"After WikiLeaks claimed that certain Arab states are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and 
have urged the U.S. to take [military] action to contain Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton took advantage of the issue and said that the released cables showed U.S. concerns 
regarding Iran’s nuclear program are shared by the international community." Tehran Times : 
WikiLeaks promoting Iranophobia, December 5, 2010)

The Western media has jumped on this opportunity and has quoted the State Department memoranda 
released by Wikleaks with a view to upholding Iran as a threat to global security as well as 
fostering divisions between Iran and the Arab world.

"The Global War on Terrorism"

The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to 
several Islamic terrorist organization, a fact which is known and amply documented.

What the reports fail to mention, however, which is crucial in an understanding of the "Global War 
on Terrorism", is that US intelligence historically has channelled its support to terrorist 
organizations via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. REF These are covert intelligence operations using 
Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries.

The use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tend to sustain the illusion that the CIA has nothing 
to do with the terror network and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are "providing the lion's 
share of funding" to Al Qaeda, the Taliban Lashkar-e-Taiba, among others, when in fact this 
financing is undertaken in liaison with their US intelligence counterparts.

"The information came to light in the latest round of documents released Sunday by Wikileaks. In 
their communiques to the State Department, U.S. embassies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states 
describe a situation in which wealthy private donors, often openly, lavishly support the same groups 
against whom Saudi Arabia claims to be fighting." ( Wikileaks: Saudis, Gulf States Big Funders of 
Terror Groups - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News)

Similarly, with regard to Pakistan:

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, make it 
clear that underneath public reassurances lie deep clashes [between the U.S. and Pakistan] over 
strategic goals on issues like Pakistan's support for the Afghan Taliban and tolerance of Al 
Qaeda,..." (Wary Dance With Pakistan in Nuclear World, The New York Times December 1, 2010

The corporate media's use and interpretation of the Wikileaks cables serves to uphold two related myths:

1) Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to global security.

2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They are financing Islamic terrorist 
organizations which are intent upon attacking the US States and its NATO allies.

The CIA and the Corporate Media

The CIA's relationship to the US media is amply documented. The New York Times continues to 
entertain a close relationship with not only with US intelligence, but also with the Pentagon and 
more recently with the Department of Homeland Security.

"Operation Mocking Bird" was an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), 
established in the early 1950s. Its objective was to exert influence on both the US as well as 
foreign media. From the 1950s, members of the US media were routinely enlisted by the CIA.

The inner workings of the CIA's relationship to the US media are described in Carl Bernstein's 1977 
article in Rolling Stone entitled The CIA and the Media:

[M]ore than 400 American journalists who [had] secretly carried out assignments for the Central 
Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. [1950-1977]Some of these 
journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. ... Reporters shared 
their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer 
Prize winners,... Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association 
with the Agency helped their work....;

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia 
Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry 
Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other 
organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National 
Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, 
Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old 
Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein

Bernstein suggests, in this regard, that "the CIA’s use of the American news media has been much 
more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members 
of Congress" (Ibid).

In recent years, the CIA's relationship to the media has become increasingly complex and 
sophisticated. We are dealing with mammoth propaganda network involving a number of agencies of 
government.

Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and fabrications have become 
increasingly blatant when compared to the 1950s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US 
foreign policy. Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major 
dailies, magazines and TV channels:

"A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the 
relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the "official 
reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain."(Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda 
Preparation of 9/11, Global Research, September 19, 2002)

Since 2001, the US media has assumed a new role in sustaining the Global War on Terrorism and 
camouflaging US sponsored war crimes. In the wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created 
the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its 
critics: "The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually 
plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion 
across the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002, see also michel 
Chossudovsky, War Propaganda, January 3, 2003).

Today's corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the question as to why the 
NYT would all of a sudden promote transparency and truth in media, by assisting Wikileaks in 
"spreading the word"; and that people around the World would not pause for one moment and question 
the basis of this incongruous relationship.

On the surface, nothing proves that Wikileaks was a CIA covert operation. However, given the 
corporate media's cohesive and structured relationship to US intelligence, not to mention the links 
of individual journalists to the military-national security establishment, the issue of a CIA 
sponsored PsyOp must necessarily be addressed.

Wikileaks Social and Corporate Entourage

Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. 
Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist's New Media Award.

The Economist has a close relationship to Britain's financial elites. It is an establishment news 
outlet, which has consistently supported Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. It bears the stamp 
of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 
1972-1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist's board. The 
Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist.

The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain's foremost 
establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation?

Are we not dealing with a case of "manufactured dissent", whereby the process of supporting and 
rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks 
project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media.

It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers 
Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild 
Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the 
broader context of Wikileaks' social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time 
Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc.

Manufacturing Dissent

Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured dissent". It seeks to expose 
government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project 
becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media 
disinformation:

"It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the 
system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress 
dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of 
dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of 
opposition... To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully 
regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement " (See Michel 
Chossudovsky, "Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate 
Elites, September 2010)

What this examination of the Wikileaks project also suggests is that the mechanics of New World 
Order propaganda, particularly with regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly 
sophisticated.

It no longer relies on the outright suppression of the facts regarding US-NATO war crimes. Nor does 
it require that the reputation of government officials at the highest levels, including the 
Secretary of State, be protected. New World Order politicians are in a sense "disposable". They can 
be replaced. What must be protected and sustained are the interests of the economic elites, which 
control the political apparatus from behind the scenes.

In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a databank; many of those facts, particularly 
those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the 
other hand to discredit the US administration.

All these facts are selectively redacted, they are then "analyzed" and interpreted by a media which 
serves the economic elites.

While the numerous facts contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public 
will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks databank. The public 
will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets.

A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion 
because it is based on what is heralded as a reliable source, when in fact what is presented in the 
pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the 
truth.

Limited forms of critical debate and "transparency" are tolerated while also enforcing broad public 
acceptance of the basic premises of US foreign policy, including its "Global War on Terrorism". With 
regard to a large segment of the US antiwar movement, this strategy seems to have succeeded: "We are 
against war but we support the "war on terrorism".

What this means is that truth in media can only be reached by dismantling the propaganda apparatus, 
--i.e. breaking the legitimacy of the corporate media which sustains the broad interests of the 
economic elites as well America's global military design.

In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage 
Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet.