NY Times Peddles War Propaganda | Interview with Daniel Simpson

Julian Assange threatened legal action over WikiLeaks documentary

South by Southwest film festival was warned against showing the film, titled WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies

Guardian
Josh Halliday

Julian Assange threatened to sue the film festival South by Southwest
if it aired a documentary titled WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies.

Julian Assange threatened legal action against a film festival in an attempt to pressure them not to show a documentary on the history of WikiLeaks.

Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, threatened to sue the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival in the United States if they broadcast the documentary, WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies, earlier this year.

The legal threats came to light after media regulator Ofcom rejected a detailed complaint from Assange about the programme on Monday.

Assange had complained that the programme, which first aired on More4 in the UK on 29 November 2011, was libellous, unfair and had invaded his privacy.

The Australian whistleblower, who is fighting extradition to Sweden where he faces sexual assault allegations, attempted to get the programme banned from public screenings in the US, sending a tersely-worded email, seen by the Guardian, headed "LETTER BEFORE ACTION" to festival organisers. Assange is understood to have sent a similar email to US cable news broadcaster CNBC.

In the email, which carried Assange's signature, he told a SXSW organiser: "Please also send me full details of SXSW's formal complaints procedure. This latter request is made without prejudice to any subsequent legal action I may take against SXSW for the screening of this libellous programme."

He claimed in the email that Oxford Film & Television, the independent British production firm behind the programme, was "under investigation by the UK statutory regulator Ofcom for multiple breaches of the Broadcasting Code".

Ofcom had undertaken an investigation into whether Assange's complaints about the programme were justified and ruled on Monday they were not.

SXSW aired the feature film version of the programme as planned on 9 March and CNBC showed a shortened version of the documentary in the US on 1 March.

Patrick Forbes, the head of documentaries at Oxford Film & Television, welcomed the Ofcom ruling and praised SXSW and CNBC for not caving in to legal pressure from Assange.

Forbes said the threat of a lawsuit meant his company had to pay for costly legal insurance, and that Assange's threats may have hampered the programme's chances of attracting a US cinema deal.

"Julian Assange attacked this film and accused us of being unfair to him. I am delighted that Ofcom has rejected his detailed complaints about our methods and entirely vindicated the programme and its making," Forbes told the Guardian.

"The film provides the definitive account of a turning point in history. As is the way with such moments, passions run high. But we have striven to make it as a accurate and fair a film to everyone involved as is possible. And I am very glad that Ofcom has recognised that."

Assange responded to the Ofcom ruling in a lengthy statement on the WikiLeaks website late on Monday. He said the ruling "glosses over many substantive points of fact" and accused the programme-makers of a producing a "biased and one-sided smear documentary".

A spokesman for Assange declined to comment further. WikiLeaks had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Assange is currently taking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden. His most recent public appearance, on the balcony of the embassy in Knightsbridge, included a lengthy attack on critics of WikiLeaks, whom he described as a threat to freedom of expression.

He wrote to the Leveson inquiry into press standards in April, claiming he had "suffered extensive libels" comparable to Gerry and Kate McCann, who received significant damages from a number of national newspapers over coverage of the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

He had previously had a complaint not upheld by the Press Complaints Commission about 45 articles, in publications including the Guardian and the Independent, which he claimed were inaccurate and unfair.

Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA

Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power

Guardian
Glenn Greenwald

CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf told New York Times
national security reporter Mark Mazzetti to 'keep me posted'
about a forthcoming Maureen Dowd column; he obliged

The rightwing transparency group, Judicial Watch, released Tuesday a new batch of documents showing how eagerly the Obama administrationshoveled information to Hollywood film-makers about the Bin Laden raid. Obama officials did so to enable the production of a politically beneficial pre-election film about that "heroic" killing, even as administration lawyers insisted to federal courts and media outlets that no disclosure was permissible because the raid was classified.

Thanks to prior disclosures from Judicial Watch of documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, this is old news. That's what the Obama administration chronically does: it manipulates secrecy powers to prevent accountability in a court of law, while leaking at will about the same programs in order to glorify the president.

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emailsbetween Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

A mere two minutes after the CIA spokeswoman sent this Friday night inquiry, Mazzetti responded. He promised her that he was "going to see a version before it gets filed", and assured her that there was likely nothing to worry about:

"My sense is there a very brief mention at bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that [screenwriter Mark] Boal also got high level access at Pentagon."

She then replied with this instruction to Mazzetti: "keep me posted", adding that she "really appreciate[d] it".

Moments later, Mazzetti forwarded the draft of Dowd's unpublished column to the CIA spokeswoman (it was published the following night online by the Times, and two days later in the print edition). At the top of that email, Mazzetti wrote: "this didn't come from me … and please delete after you read." He then proudly told her that his assurances turned out to be true:

This exchange, by itself, is remarkably revealing: of the standard role played by establishment journalists and the corruption that pervades it. Here we have a New York Times reporter who covers the CIA colluding with its spokesperson to plan for the fallout from the reporting by his own newspaper ("nothing to worry about"). Beyond this, that a New York Times journalist – ostensibly devoted to bringing transparency to government institutions – is pleading with the CIA spokesperson, of all people, to conceal his actions and to delete the evidence of collusion is so richly symbolic.

The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:

"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter. 

"'I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing,' Baquet said. 'I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing.' 

"'The optics aren't what they look like,' he went on. 'I've talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know, it's much ado about nothing.'"

There is so much to say about that passage.

First, try though I did, I'm unable to avoid noting that this statement from Baquet – "the optics aren't what they look like" – is one of the most hilariously incoherent utterances seen in some time. It's the type ofmeaningless, illiterate corporatese that comes spewing forth from bumbling executives defending the indefensible. I've read that sentence roughly a dozen times over the last 24 hours and each time, it provides me with greater amounts of dark amusement.

Now the Real Killing of bin Laden Is Revealed?

Daily Bell

Osama bin Laden book by Navy SEAL reveals al-Qaeda leader unarmed and shot in doorway ... Osama bin Laden was shot in the head as he peeked out of his bedroom, according to the No Easy Day book by a Navy SEAL, contradicting previous official accounts of the raid on the former al-Qaeda leader. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: This must be a truthful book because it is making the Pentagon very uncomfortable.

Free-Market Analysis: No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama Bin Laden, by Mark Owen with Kevin Maurer, should probably be withdrawn for being a lie. When Clifford Irving famously concocted a tale about Howard Hughes he ended up serving 19 months in the slammer. But "Owen" will laugh all the way to the bank.

We just finished writing about this book the other day. We explained how eyewitness accounts entirely contradict the official narrative. We reported on a recent Infowars interview that reinforced what many others have reported, that bin Laden died ten years ago.

One only has to look at the videos that bin Laden supposedly released in the 2000s. All are still pictures of him, rather than video, and every one can probably be proven NOT to be him.

He was dying of Marfan syndrome a decade ago; his death was reported multiple times; he made not a single confirmable appearance after, say, 2000.

The caves from which he supposedly engineered his takedown of the World Trade Towers were never found. They conveniently dropped down the memory hole. Here's an article we posted just the other day on this book and the possibility it would be made into a movie:

Steven Spielberg to Make Phony Movie of Fake Osama Death Book?

And here's some more about it from the Telegraph article, above:

The terror mastermind was hit in the head when he looked out of his bedroom door in the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, according to the book – a copy of which has been obtained by The Associated Press.

The former Navy SEAL writing under the pseudonym Mark Owen in No Easy Day, says he was directly behind the "point man" as they made their way up the stairs of the two-storey house.

"Less than five steps" from the top of the stairs, he heard "suppressed" gunfire: "BOP. BOP." The point man had seen a "man peeking out of the door" on the right side of the hallway.

The author writes that bin Laden ducked back into his bedroom and the SEALs followed, only to find the terrorist crumpled on the floor in a pool of blood with a hole visible on the right side of his head and two women wailing over his body.

Owen says the point man pulled the two women out of the way and shoved them into a corner and he and the other SEALs shot him several times until he lay motionless.

"(We) trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds. The bullets tore into him, slamming his body into the floor until he was motionless," Owen writes according to a copy of the book obtained by the Huffington Post.

The SEALs later found two weapons stored by the doorway, untouched, the author said. Neither weapon was loaded.

"He hadn't even prepared a defense. He had no intention of fighting. He asked his followers for decades to wear suicide vests or fly planes into buildings, but didn't even pick up his weapon," Owen writes.
Bin Laden was apparently wearing a white t-shirt, loose tan trousers and a tunic.

The power elite that pursues wars like the Afghan war uses dominant social themes to promote world government. It seeks to frighten people into giving up wealth and power to globalist institutions. But these are large and simplistic promotions that are not easily unraveled.

The bin Laden promotion is worrisome because it is so obviously false and because so many people know it is. There is very little gray here – and Money Power usually manipulates shades of gray easily.

In other words, as the Internet reveals more and more of their plans, they are growing desperate. Or at least it seems they don't care anymore. You know, Bin Laden hasn't been sighted for a decade. His vaunted caves were never found. Plenty of respectable people have indicated he died around the turn of the century.

As far as the "raid" goes ... No photos of the body have emerged, not one. No photos of an aged bin Laden. No DNA. No body.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

All we get is the ongoing attrition of the SEAL unit that was involved in the episode. And this is more like a mob hit where they rub out some participants as a warning to others.

And then, of course, there is the release of the book, which is obviously supposed to give President Barack Obama an election lift. Just like a movie about the killing, "Zero Dark Thirty."

Bin Laden Death Movie Mired in Controversy

And now, of course, Steven Spielberg is supposedly thinking of optioning the book.
The book is being presented (on purpose) in a counterintuitive way. We learn, for instance, that No Easy Daycontradicts "the official version of events." But no one will comment on the differences (maybe because neither scenario occurred).

We also learn that bin Laden's body was treated with contempt by SEALs who sat on him in the cramped helicopter.

We learn the SEALs "are not fans" of President Barack Obama.

We learn that Vice President Joe Biden reminds SEALs of "someone's drunken uncle at Christmas dinner."
And, of course, we learn, as a final touch, that officials at the CIA are thinking of suing the author for not allowing the book to undergo a "formal review."

Conclusion: But, hey, that's understandable. It was probably written in the Pentagon.

Judicial Watch Obtains Stack of ‘Overlooked’ CIA Records Detailing Meetings with bin Laden Filmmakers

Judicial Watch

Comes complete with music video!

Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Department of Defense (DOD) regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and Kathryn Bigelow, the Academy Award-winning director of The Hurt Locker, and screenwriter Mark Boal in preparation for their film Zero Dark Thirty, which details the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden.  According to the records, the Obama administration granted Boal and Bigelow unusual access to agency information in preparation for their film, which was reportedly scheduled for an October 2012 release, just before the presidential election, but the trailers are running now until the rescheduled release in December.

The records – which should have been produced months ago pursuant to a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on January 21, 2012 – include records from a “stack” of “overlooked” documents discovered by the CIA in July 2012. The following are highlights from the records, which include internal DOD, White House and CIA email correspondence with the filmmakers:

• According to a June 15, 2011, email from Benjamin Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, to then Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Doug Wilson, then-CIA Director of Public Affairs George Little, and Deputy White House Press Secretary Jaime Smith, the Obama White House was intent on “trying to have visibility into the UBL (Usama bin Laden) projects.”

“…we are trying to have visibility into the UBL projects and this is likely the most high profile one. Would like to have whatever group is going around in here at the WH [White House] to get a sense of what they’re doing / what cooperation they’re seeking. Jamie will be POC [point of contact].”

• According to e-mail exchange on June 7, 2011, CIA spokesperson Marie E. Harf openly discussed providing preferential treatment to the Boal/Bigelow project over others related to the bin Laden killing: “I know we don’t pick favorites but it makes sense to get behind a winning horse…Mark and Kathryn’s movie is going to be the first and the biggest. It’s got the most money behind it, and two Oscar winners on board…”

• In a July 20, 2011, e-mail, Mark Boal writes to thank then-CIA Director of Public Affairs George Little for “pulling for him” with the agency, noting that it made, “all the difference.” Little responds: “…I can’t tell you how excited we all are (at DOD and CIA) about the project…PS – I want you to know how good I’ve been not mentioning the premiere tickets. :)”

• On July 13, 2011, Mark Boal’s assistant, Jonathan Leven, sent CIA spokesperson Marie Harf a copy of the floor plan of the bin Laden compound and asked him to verify its accuracy:  “Per your conversation with Mark, can you verify whether this floor plan is accurate?” The next day Harf responds: “Ok, I checked with our folks, and that floor plan matches with what we have. It looks legit to us.”

• On July 14, 2011, Mark Boal asks CIA spokesperson Marie Harf to provide detailed information regarding the third floor of the compound that were not present on the open-source floor plan: “Would you mind looking into getting us some of the third floor specs…as the open source plan is missing those: height of wall, etc..? We will be building a full scale replica of the house. Including the inhabitants of the animal pen!” Harf responds minutes later: “Ha! Of course I don’t mind! I’ll work on that tomorrow…

• In an internal CIA memo regarding Kathryn Bigelow’s visit to agency headquarters dated July 14, 2011, CIA spokesperson Marie Harf describes Boal’s contact with the agency as a “deep dive.” (The memo was originally classified Secret.): “Kathryn is not interested in doing the deep dives that Mark did; she simply wants to meet the people Mark has been talking to.”

• On August 5, 2011, CIA Spokesperson Marie Harf exchanges several e-mails with New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti about the Boal/Bigelow project and, specifically, about a column by Maureen Dowd to be published August 7, 2011, making critical reference to the access the filmmakers were given. Mazzetti gave Harf an advance copy of the article, with the caveat, “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read.  See, nothing to worry about!”

• In a June 15, 2011, e-mail, to Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Benjamin Rhodes, Doug Wilson notes that the cooperation that Boal and Bigelow had been getting from the CIA was with the “full knowledge and full approval/support” of Director Panetta. “Boal has been working with us and with the CIA (via George Little) for initial context briefings – at DoD this has been provided by Mike Vickers, and at CIA by relevant officials with the full knowledge and full approval/support of Director Panetta.”

• In a July 17, 2011, e-mail, CIA spokesperson Marie Harf advises then CIA Director of Public Affairs Greg Little that Boal and Bigelow would be “meeting individually with both [name redacted] and the translator who was on the raid…”

Judicial Watch launched its investigation of Bigelow’s meetings with the Obama administration following press reports suggesting that the Obama administration may have leaked classified information to the director as source material for Bigelow’s film.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the information leak was designed to help the Obama 2012 presidential reelection campaign: “The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film [sic] by the Oscar-winning pair who made ‘The Hurt Locker’ will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.”

In addition to Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden film records, the organization continues to fight in court for the release of post-mortem images of bin Laden and the alleged burial at sea. The Obama administration continues to withhold these records citing national security concerns.

“These new documents provide more backing to the serious charge that the Obama administration played fast and loose with national security information to help Hollywood filmmakers,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder we’ve had to fight one year of stonewalling from the administration.  These new documents show there is no doubt that Obama White House was intensely interested in this film that was set to portray President Obama as ‘gutsy.’”

Read about the search for bin Laden documents and more in Tom Fitton’s New York Times best-seller The Corruption Chronicles, on sale now.

NYT reporter leaked advance copy of Maureen Dowd column to CIA

Politico
Dylan Byers

America's favorite bearded time lord

Newly available CIA records obtained by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, reveal that New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti forwarded an advance copy of a Maureen Dowd column to a CIA spokesperson -- a practice that is widely frowned upon within the industry.

Mazzetti's correspondence with CIA spokesperson Marie Harf, on August 5, 2011, pertained to the Kathryn Bigelow-Mark Boal film "Zero Dark Thirty," about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and a Times op-ed column by Dowd set to be published two days later that criticized the White House for having "outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood."

According to Judicial Watch, Mazzetti sent Harf an advance copy of Dowd's column, and wrote: “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read.  See, nothing to worry about!”

POLITICO has just reached out to the Times for comment, as it was unable to do so prior to Judicial Watch's decision to lift the embargo on the files. Updates here if and when I hear back.

Judicial Watch obtained the files through a formal Freedom of Information Act request. The full email can be viewed here.

NY Times Scrubs Mention Of CIA Arming Syrian Rebels

Global Research
Paul Joseph Watson

In an article about France urging Syrian rebels to form a provisional government, the New York Times scrubbed a passage which revealed that the CIA was helping funnel arms to rebel groups that have aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda terrorists.

Version three of the story, posted at 19:45:05 UTC yesterday and entitled France Says It Would Recognize Provisional Syrian Government, included the line, ” American intelligence agents have helped funnel arms to rebel groups.”

However, fifteen minutes later the revelation that the CIA was arming the rebels was removed and replaced with the words, “American intelligence agents have helped to identify the rebel groups that receive arms.”

Copies of the two different versions of the article can be viewed here.

This change of wording, albeit subtle, serves to absolve the CIA of directly arming rebels, who are admittedly being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists as the London Guardian reported last month.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama signed a secret order authorizing the CIA to aid Syrian rebels in attempting to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad. However, the order stopped short of allowing the CIA to provide lethal weapons.

Despite public claims on behalf of the White House that no weapons are being sent to the rebels, reports that the CIA has been doing precisely that have been circulating for months, including a recent story about CIA spies smuggling 14 stinger missiles into Syria so rebels could defend themselves with ground to air technology.

The New York Times admitted in a June 21 report that the CIA was “steering” arms to Syrian rebels from the Turkish border, but claimed the weapons were paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The New York Times’ decision to alter the wording of the article is another example of how NATO-aligned media outlets are concerned about overemphasizing western support for the rebels given their involvement in terrorist attacks and other acts of brutality.

Last week, the BBC removed a video clip which documented how FSA rebels were committing war crimes by using prisoners as unwitting suicide bombers.

In a related development, hackers infiltrated Amnesty International’s website last night and used the NGO’s blog platform to post stories about the plight of protesters in Bahrain, Kurds in Turkey, as well as an article entitled Amnesty Calls on UN to stop the US, Qatar and Turkey funding and arming Syria Rebels.

The Associated Press dismissed the article as a “fake blog post” and refused to divulge its content. Yet the story, a cached copy of which can be read here, cited confirmed reports that Syrian rebels are engaging in war crimes, as well as FSA fighters being responsible for the Houla massacre, which was initially blamed on Assad’s forces.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

WikiLeaks Cables Call for a Global Bank Bailout

Daily Bail

WikiLeaks Cable: "Systemic Insolvency Is Now The Problem, Global Bank Bailout Needed"

In light of the Assange speech this weekend, we are reposting three wikileaks stories.

This peice was likely missed by many readers when first published. The importance is obvious for those (ourselves and many other blogs) who have made the case since 2008 that we were, and still are, facing a solvency crisis. A tsunami of Fed liquidity and FASB accounting black magic can only do so much. The global banking pig is already wearing lipstick and full make-up and it's still pretty ugly, despite Bernanke's best efforts at printing and pretending his way to future bliss and a spot in the Keynesian hall of fame.

---

Source - UK Guardian

Wikileaks U.S. Embassy cable concerning a March 17, 2008 meeting with Central Bank of England Governor Mervyn King:

Monday, 17 March 2008, 18:27
C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 000797
SIPDIS
NOFORN
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 03/17/2018
TAGS ECON, EFIN, UK
SUBJECT: BANKING CRISIS NOW ONE OF SOLVENCY NOT LIQUIDITY
SAYS BANK OF ENGLAND GOVERNOR
Classified By: AMB RTUTTLE, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

1. Since last summer, the nature of the crisis in financial markets has changed. The problem is now not liquidity in the system but rather a question of systemic solvency, Bank of England (BOE) Governor Mervyn King said at a lunch meeting with Treasury Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt and Ambassador Tuttle. King said there are two imperatives. First to find ways for banks to avoid the stigma of selling unwanted paper at distressed prices or going to a central bank for assistance. Second to ensure there's a coordinated effort to possibly recapitalize the global banking system. For the first imperative, King suggested developing a pooling and auction process to unblock the large volume of financial investments for which there is currently no market. For the second imperative, King suggested that the U.S., UK, Switzerland, and perhaps Japan might form a temporary new group to jointly develop an effort to bring together sources of capital to recapitalize all major banks.

Systemic Insolvency Is Now The Problem

2. King said that liquidity is necessary but not sufficient in the current market crisis because the global banking system is undercapitalized due to being over leveraged. He said it is hard to look at the big four UK banks (Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays, HSBC, and Lloyds TSB) and not think they need more capital. A coordinated effort among central banks and finance ministers may be needed to develop a plan to recapitalize the banking system.

Unblocking Illiquid Mortgage-Backed Securities

3. King said it is also imperative to find a way for banks to sell off unwanted illiquid securities, including mortgage backed securities, without resorting to sales at distressed valuations. He said sales at distressed values only serve to lower the floor to which banks must mark down their assets (mark to market), thereby forcing unwarranted additional write downs. He said we need to find an auction system where banks could move paper they want to sell without fear of stigma that the market views selling at a low price as a sign that a bank is in trouble. King said, however, he did not yet know how to structure such an auction and that further dialogue was needed. Kimmitt acknowledged the need to find ways to unblock these markets and said we should remain in touch bilaterally as well as in the G-7, the Financial Stability Forum, and the central banks.

A Possible Approach To Recapitalization

4. The G-7 is almost dysfunctional on an economic level, said King. Key economies are not included, especially those that have large and growing pools of capital. King said that a new international group was needed to address the issue. It could be a temporary group, and he suggested that perhaps the central banks and finance ministers of the U.S., the UK, and Switzerland could coordinate discussions with other countries that have large pools of capital, including sovereign wealth funds, about recycling dollars to recapitalize banks. King said Japan might not be included because it has little to offer. King noted, though that including the Japanese might force their hand in finally marking to market impaired assets. Kimmitt said that he was cautious about starting new groups in the international financial community because of the inevitable debate around whom to include.

5. The King proposals were not casual ideas developed in the course of luncheon conversation. It was clear that his principal objective in the meeting was to outline his outside-the-box thinking for Kimmitt. King included very few details about his proposals and was content to present broad concepts, thereby planting the seeds for future discussion. END COMMENT.

6. Participants: USG: Ambassador Robert Tuttle; Deputy Secretary Kimmitt; Eric Meyer, Office Director for Europe;

SIPDIS Robert Saliterman, Spokesman, International Affairs, U.S. Treasury; Warren Chane, ECONOFF. UK: Mervyn King, Governor, Bank of England; Chris Salmon, Private Secretary.

7. Deputy Secretary Kimmitt has cleared this message.

---

More coverage of this story:

BoE Sought Global Bank Bailout in 2008

The head of the Bank of England had sought to set up a group with the United States, Switzerland and Japan to recapitalize major global banks six months before the financial crisis engulfed them, U.S. diplomatic cables show.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40654365

Mervyn King plotted a secret bailout of the banking system six months before Gordon Brown decided to take action. The Bank of England governor told U.S. officials in March 2008 that ‘a co-ordinated effort to possibly recapitalise the global banking system’ was needed to save it from collapse, according to documents released by WikiLeaks. Mr Brown did not come up with his master plan to tackle the financial crisis until September 2008 following the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers. The delay raises a major question over his claims that he was the brains behind the bailout and had ‘saved the world’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338712/Bank-England-boss-Mervyn-King-Gordon-Brown-bank-bailout-mastermind.html#ixzz18DxwhY3D

LONDON (AP) — U.S. diplomats say Bank of England Governor Mervyn King suggested that Britain, the U.S., Switzerland and possibly Japan bail out the global banking system in March 2008 — some six months before the financial crisis peaked.

In a U.S. embassy cable published by The Guardian on Tuesday, King is reported as telling U.S. ambassador to Britain Robert Tuttle and U.S. Treasury deputy secretary Robert Kimitt that the four countries might form "a temporary new group to jointly develop an effort to bring together sources of capital to recapitalize all major banks."

King suggested the new group would override the "dysfunctional" Group of Seven industrialized nations. But Kimmitt expressed caution about starting new groups because of inclusion debates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/wikileaks-boe-suggested-global-bank-bailout-in-08.html

---

This is a must see:

Assange Fracas: All About Establishing Legitimacy of International Criminal Court?

Daily Bell

Ecuador might take the case to the International Court of Justice, but would first try to convince London that it should allow Assange to travel to the South American country or give him guarantees he would not be extradited to the United States. "We're states with responsible governments that can negotiate directly about this problem. We have always been open to negotiations with the British and Swedish governments," Correa told state-run television on Monday night. Correa's government, however, says there have been no talks since August 15. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: It's a new era of globalization, and these delicate matters should be decided at the highest international levels.

Free-Market Analysis: Is the Julian Assange extradition standoff nothing more than a way of further establishing the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court?

This could make sense. We've been puzzled with the way things have played out regarding Assange but now we believe we may have the key.

If one accepts that Assange and WikiLeaks are at the highest level connected to representatives of a global power elite, then what's going on becomes clear.

This elite seeks to run the world and has been challenged in this effort by what we call the Internet Reformation that has exposed the globalist conspiracy for those who wish to see. As they did long ago when attempting to combat the information made available by the Gutenberg Press, the powers-that-be are once again trying to muddy the proverbial waters, or so it seems to us.

WikiLeaks is perhaps just one of a number of so-called false flag projects that have been developed to confuse people about what is really going on. Anonymous is another one, apparently. So is Occupy Wall Street, which is reportedly funded at least in part by elitist apparatchik George Soros.

All of these entities and many more seek to combat the free-market thinking and disciplined philosophical anarchy that was making it impossible to justify elitist mercantilism.

The elite conspiracy is based on control of government. No government, no conspiracy. So when one studies false-flag events, one must look to see if the individual or group is mouthing radical or fashionable rhetoric while still suggesting public solutions to private problems.

This is one of the dividing lines between elite dominant social themes and the reality of credible and sincere change making.

Occupy Wall Street utilizes much of the rhetoric of "rebellion" and proposes seemingly anti-establishment points of view. But when one unpacks the rhetoric one begins to see that almost all the solutions are government oriented.

The hacker group Anonymous claims to be motivated by Internet anarchism but their targets are often corporate and rarely government oriented. They have surely not taken aim at the West's military-industrial complex.
The elites understand this and only turn to violence as a last resort, preferring to motivate people via fear-based propaganda. But because of the Internet, these scarcity-based memes have become obvious and increasingly transparent.

This does not mean the elites have ceased to try to regenerate these approaches. Julian Assange would seem to be a case in point.

As a young man, Assange went to work for the government after losing a hacking case. Eventually, he wrote for the power-elite controlled Economist magazine and won several prizes.

Somehow, later, in the first decade of the 21st century, he burst full-blown onto the alternative journalism scene with something called WikiLeaks.

We've chronicled, as have many others, the idea that WikiLeaks is a triumph of style over substance. Having a supposedly radical "news" outlet controlled by Western Intel agencies allows the powers-that-be to leak information to the media in a credible way.

And who are Assange's partners in all of this? Why, the traditional mainstream media including such names as theNew York Times and the Washington Post.

Assange is providing credibility to facilities of elite information. The mainstream media, bought and paid for by the power elite, is foundering around the world, but these are the instruments that Assange chooses to work with nonetheless.

We won't go on about this. It's fairly evident at this point who Assange is and how he is being positioned, in our view anyway. For more on Assange, just search the Internet for Assange and the Daily Bell. Or search for Assange and "false flag." There's plenty of information out there.

Again, exposure in multiple times and ways hasn't slowed the Assange promotion. He is tall, blond, handsome and arrogant. He continues to be useful to the power elite in numerous ways. And now it would seem he's going to be used to provide credibility to the International Criminal Court.

A friend of the Daily Bell's pointed this out to us yesterday and it makes a lot of sense. The Soros-funded ICC has not met with a rapturous reception and even many developing country leaders are wary of it.

But if Ecuador can draw in the ICC as a protector of Ecuador against the big British bully that is standing in the way of Assange's legal extradition, it would be a tremendous way of positioning the Court as a friend of the developing world.

Already the Assange extradition is being seen as a struggle between North and South. People have not been able to explain the bad behavior of British officials but it all becomes clear if one looks on it as an elaborate psy-op.

Assange Case Exposes 'International Hypocrisy'

Der Speigel

Ecuador granted political asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday.

Ecuador may have granted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asylum, but it seems unlikely that he will ever make it to the South American country. More to the point, say German commentators, is the fact that both Ecuador and Britain have granted Assange an even larger soap box.

For almost two years, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has wiggled out of efforts to have him extradited to Sweden where he faces sexual assault charges. Now with the decision of the Ecuadorian government to grant him asylum at its London embassy, Assange got another reprieve. What happens next is far from clear.

The British government has retaliated by threatening to invoke a little used law to remove the embassy's diplomatic status so that it can ship Assange to Sweden. The law was enacted in 1987 after a British police officer was shot outside a Libyan embassy. In doing so it would be violating the principles behind the 1961 Vienna Convention which deemed embassies as extra territorial areas so that diplomats could work undisturbed in foreign countries. Furthermore, London has promised to arrest Assange as soon as he sets foot on British soil, something he would have to do should he wish to travel to Ecuador.

Of course, the high stakes game of chicken isn't just over the Australian's alleged sex crimes. In releasing reams of classified communications, mainly US diplomatic cables and military documents from Iraq and Afghanistan, through his website WikiLeaks, Assange became an instant international outlaw. Assange has said he fears that once in Sweden he will be extradited to the US where he would face serious charges over the release of classified US government documents.

The German newspapers see the latest development in the Assange saga as a political power struggle pitting Great Britain against Ecuador, which is no stranger to human rights abuses. Assange is just a small pawn in that larger game.

By granting Assange asylum, editorialists agree that the South American country is thumbing its nose at the rest of the world and that President Rafael Correa is flexing his muscle on the international stage. Meanwhile Great Britain's forceful response, they say, comes at the expense of established international norms. Julian Assange, they argue, isn't worth the trouble.

The conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Whatever one thinks of Julian Assange and his deeds, he is neither Osama bin Laden nor a mafia boss. That's why, carefully put, it was a blunder that the British government challenged Ecuador by referring to a law that allows it to retrieve asylum seekers from embassies in individual cases.... By heading down that path, the British government has done Assange a favor. Now, he can continue working on his own myth."

"That a government such as Ecuador's, of all countries, can now pose as a defender of human rights is shameful, but that is in the end London's fault. Unfortunately, it has also meant that the fact that Assange is accused of raping a woman in Sweden has taken a back seat."

The leftist Die Tageszeitung writes:

"The case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has become an unbelievable example of international hypocrisy. Both of the countries involved, Great Britain and Ecuador, are blameworthy."

"Far from the world's attention, the (Ecuadorian) government is evicting an ex-government worker from Belarus who has enjoyed three years of asylum status in Ecuador. The reason is that six weeks ago, Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko was in Quito to sign a number of trade agreements and applied pressure. A short time later the man, Alexander Barankov, was arrested in Quito. Against this background, the flowery words of Ecuador's foreign minister about the huge importance of political asylum don't hold much value."

"Great Britain, for its part, has openly threatened to storm the Ecuadorian embassy with police forces in order to arrest Assange. That makes an absurdity out of its own internationally supported position about the protection of diplomatic representatives and adherence to the Vienna Convention."

"That the British government is prepared to even suggest setting such a precedent is a tough blow. That they are giving Assange so much importance is surprising."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"Why does (Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa) have so much sympathy for an Australian named Julian Assange...? Because Correa sees the founder of the whistle blowing platform WikiLeaks as a soul mate. By publishing classified dispatches that have exposed the US above all, Assange has pleased Correa. He belongs alongside Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Bolivia's Evo Morales and Cuba's Fidel Castro as the most important opponents of Washington. Secondly the temperamental Ecuadorian smells a chance to play a little world politics and show off the new self confidence of South America."

"Offering asylum is his right. Practically it will be much more complicated. Sweden is pushing for (Assange's) extradition not because of (WikiLeaks) but because of his alleged sexual assaults. From that point of view, he cannot formally be considered to be the victim of political persecution. In any case Correa is allowed to protect his embassy from encroachment by England. Yet he should display just as much respect for his critics at home."

The business daily Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"Julian Assange will likely send a thank you letter to the British government -- though not likely with Ecuadorian stamps. The founder of the whistle blowing platform WikiLeaks, who is hiding in the London embassy of the Andean nation, obtained political asylum in Ecuador. With that, he has received a lot of free PR from the blundering Brits who have catapulted the almost forgotten Australian back into the headlines. And he is even in his favorite roll as David fighting against the Goliaths of the world, mainly the US and Great Britain."

"Great Britain has helped Assange again portray himself as a victim of political persecution…. In truth Assange is fleeing from a long prison term in Sweden. And the Ecuadorian government, above all President Rafael Correa, wants to poke at the unloved US by granting asylum to Assange. The relationship of the two countries has been tense for years."

-- Renuka Rayasam

Who is Behind Wikileaks?

Global Research
Michel Chossudovsky

"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." (Aldous 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 is 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 (unconfirmed) that Wikileaks had, at the outset of the project in January 2007, contacted and sought the advice of Freedom House. This included an invitation to Freedom House (FH) to participate in the Wikileaks advisory board: 

"We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:

1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political corruption

2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH

3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members

4. general advice on funding, coallition [sic] building and decentralised operations and political framing" (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007). There is no evidence of FH followup support to the Wikileaks project. Freedom House is a Washington based "watchdog organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world". It is chaired by William H. Taft IV who was legal adviser to the State Department under G. W. Bush and Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration.

America Must See! FAKE YouTube Twitter Accounts From Libya Manipulated Social Media Mirror The Virtual War as part of the Psyops WAR

Video: LATEST REPORT FROM TRIPOLI: NATO's Mainstream Media: "Killing The Truth"

Global Research
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research correspondent Mahdi Nazemroaya, who is stationed in a central Tripoli hotel with the international press, says the journalists are being targeted by the rebels and the NATO forces that support them. While he is speaking to RT, shooting can be heard. “They are specifically targeting the areas where international journalists are, to sow panic here,” he argued. “NATO has done all the heavy work. This is a NATO war. They heavily bombed cities west of [Tripoli], they’ve bombed all night, without even 10 seconds of stopping. They have bombed this entire city and NATO landed the insurgents on the coast of Tripoli.”

But the city’s defenders are not pessimistic, continues Nazemroaya.

“The situation has gone tenser,” said Nazemroaya. “More members of the hotel staff have returned with guns. Obviously they have been fighting. These are volunteers, not soldiers. They returned with a picture which is not a picture of loss and they are confident.”