Yup, Streisand Effect, as suggested here

This is going to turn into the biggest pro-Manning event to date.

Love it.

Or have a look at this: http://prorev.com/2009/02/cop-is-more-likely-to-kill-you-than.html

This insanity has got to be stopped.

If one looks at the industry around terror-attack-prevention as insurance, the whole ‘terrorism’ thing becomes astonishing irrational.

The chance is 1 in 40 million that you will die from a terrorist act, but 1 in 5,000 that you will die from automobile or gun.

The amount of money being lavished on this terror-attack-prevention insurance is astonishing.

Imagine being able to create a business that earns gazillions to ensure that you are protected against a 1 in 40 million chance. And then not have to pay out when failing to do so. In fact, with each failure the insurer gets to increase the premium; to up the insurance cost and charge even more.

That is insurance fraud of the highest order.

And it’s based on an insurance-company-induced psychosis; they promote the fear.

That’s the terror-attack-prevention industry in a nutshell.

And then there is this angle:

More Sydney Gay Mardi Gras 2013, in support of Bradley Manning.

http://thing2thing.com/?p=3442

I think the SF Pride organisation has just created a Streisand Effect event.

It is likely to create such a huge publicity that it couldn’t have been more counter productive if it had been planned. In fact, maybe Lisa Williams is actually a hero. Was he move a protest at being told what she could and couldn’t do by DC?

In any case, Sydney did it up for Bradley and I bet SF will go bigger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY4BLeiM-uQ

Further to the above. I found the original PBS Newshour segment, 3 minutes, here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViOMJZZZqI

KG: One of the commenters on Greg Mitchell’s piece that you mention above identifies an excellent set of movies by a fellow named Scott Noble that are exceptionally good.

His comment, “But I think one of the best distilled but sweeping accounts of the workings of the empire is someone on the margins, Scott Noble, whose excellent documentary is here: The Power Principle”

They are lengthy, 3 @ 1.5 hours each.

At the 1:28:30 mark of the second movie it is mentioned that “Rumsfeld recruited 75 CIA Agents and embedded them in major news organisations prior to invading Iraq.”

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of this before. Have you Kevin?

I no longer wonder why the MSM appeared complicit, they were!

Then there is this

Wow, the argument that senior US Politicians and Military should be prosecuted for War Crimes has moved from general discussion to a suggested set of detailed charges and evidence.

http://darkernet.in/indicting-the-us-government-for-crimes-against-humanity-unsealing-the-evidence/

Sorry, the above quote relates to another case, but gives an example of the response the CIA may take.

We should like expect very little.

” the CIA said that it did not want to file a Vaughn
index at all, but instead submit what it called a
“no number, no list” response — acknowledging that it had
responsive documents, but declining to “further describe or even
enumerate on the public record the number, types, dates, or
other descriptive information about these responsive records.”

Wow, the argument that senior US Politicians and Military should be prosecuted for War Crimes has moved from general discussion to a suggested set of detailed charges and evidence.

http://darkernet.in/indicting-the-us-government-for-crimes-against-humanity-unsealing-the-evidence/

This interview on DemocracyNow is also very worthwile.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/7/operation_condor_trial_tackles_coordinated_campaign

There is one absolute giveaway clue about what the US military belives it can and can’t do. That is that the it will not sign up to the International Criminal Court.

When threatened with being held accountable for war crimes by Iraq, Obama withdrew the troops. If they couldn’t go on committing war crimes they refused to stay. That is the only reason the US is not in Iraq today.

A similar sitution is developing in Afghan’n, Karsai is now unable to continue to provide immunity for war crimes and as a result the troops are being withdrawn.

The behaviour shown Collateral Murder video is not an exception. And now with the drones killing wedding parties and entire family groups, Obama has escalated the war crimes to an all new level.

And now that I’ve got that off my chest I’d just like to calmly summarise it all by repeating John Young’s quote from above, ” … Gibney was a double-crossing son of a bitch”.

The question really is, “Is what Wikileaks (maybe Assange) did in soliciting information (maybe from Manning) any different to what Woodward and Berstein did in soliciting information from Deep Throat that became the Watergate Story?”

Every GOOD news organisation solicits news from as close to source as it can get it. On the battlefield if possible. The Government hates this as it exposes them, which is what the primary function of news media is; they are to be the watchdogs, beholding to no one, and fearlessly and without favour exposing NEWS of Government lies and deceit. Unfortunately, they have become stenographers copying Government releases and never questioning what they hear.

Let me give a very topical example. Frontline just now exposed the Dept of Justice’s incompetence, and Lanny Breuer has within 24 hours resigned as a result. That is good investigative news. Why has it taken so long. Where have all the news organisations been for the last 5+ years?

Wikileaks is pursuing the same style of ‘exposing the lies’ strategy that Frontline has just been so successful with. BUT, the current stenographers, like the New York Times, are so corrupted that they have abandoned Wikileaks, even after thousands of headlines based on Wikileaks revelations, and are saying, Wikileaks is not a media organisation, and therefore, the news they gather and release is actually more espionage than fearless reporting.

The DoJ loves this as it means they can hang Assange and in so doing make sure these other gutless media organisations are suitably chastised, see what could happen to them if they want to be more than stenographers (wonder what Frontlines fate will be?), and the Government can therefore continue their lieing cheating ways.

Will the DoJ and Obama Government succeed in keeping the Media in check?

Who knows, but what is certain is that people like Gibney who produce shit like, “We Steal Secrets” are propagandists who make Joseph Goebbells, Hitler’s Propagandist, look like an amateur.

Movies like Zero Dark Thirty and now this We Steal Secrets are brilliant at deceiving, but track down and watch a copy of “The Lives of Others” and you will see where we are headed.

Sorry for the lengthy reply to your simple question but soliciting information is not illegal for media organisations so we should all recognise the question is an attempt by the Government at reframing a valid activity of every news organisation to make it appear like espionage. It is not.

Crush the media and the citizens are blind to what the Government does.

Make Wikileaks’ communications with Manning about a foreigner (Assange) corrupting a citizen and you have espionage, make it about a news organisation looking for dirt on Government wrong-doing and you have a story that we all need to hear.

Which do you think the Government is characterising this communication as?

I think this is what Kevin was linking to. Sydney Morning Herald.

And I expect he means the tone of the new Wikileaks film is sick if it is pro-war with Iran propaganda as Asssange claims.

Kevin, have you listened to the interview? There’s at least another 30 seconds of semi-audible conversation that takes place after the transcript ends and before the music starts. I’d be amazed if no one had a smart phone that was recording this interview through to its conclusion.

But putting that aside, there is certainly lots more that needed to be said to defend against Gibney’s attack. As it stands the defence was aborted due to technical issues while the prosecution (Gibney) proceeded in full. Amy’s body language during that interview shows her disgust with Gibney so I suspect she would like to see a more robust defence.

Hopefully she will do a follow-up with Jen Robinson and permit this fuller defence to occur.

Kevin, I have huge respect for Amy and Democracy Now and give them full benefit of the doubt.

You know Amy, maybe you could get answers to my questions about; no transcript, no taped backup, and what happened?

That information is all I’ll need but my tweets to @democracynow received no reply so I’m in the dark.

Please turn on the light with facts if you can. Thanks.

BTW, keep up the great work.

John Young, founder of Cryptome says of Alex Gibney and his movie, “On September 30, 2011, we met Alexis and a Jigsaw videographer (sorry, don’t remember his name) at Zuccotti Park, stated that we had read accounts in law suits about Gibney’s biased treatment of targets — flattering them to take part in interviews then betraying their trust with attacks of highly selective quotes and clips for maximum drama and entertainment. Based on that we said we wanted nothing more to do with Jigsaw, that Gibney was a double-crossing son of a bitch like most documentarians and journalists. We asked the videographer if he recorded that. He said yes. We went off to video OWS and they followed behind videoing our videoing.”

See here.