PROOF: Wikileaks is censoring & deleting cables!!

EDIT: GO HERE AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF!! THIS SITE tracks the Wikileaks redactions and edits, and compares the "originals" to the "officials" for you. Click the "Download Cable-diff Now" button (it's a torrent), extract the file into any folder, and open "index_cable.html" or "index_date.html" to start browsing the differences! This file is updated with every update to the official Wikileaks database. Before you post a response, please do this before claiming there is no proof or that this is a hoax.

What is going on with this "transparent" site?! Within the past few days, people have begun to notice that the cables offered on Wikileaks are being selectively redacted (removing full paragraphs, not just names), or completely removed from the site without prior notice. Furthermore, some news outlets are reporting on cables yet to be released. Already, 146 files have been redacted or censored by Wikileaks since their initial release.

Here's what they've done so far:

- There were 13 cables deleted from WL cablegate site (e.g.: #09LONDON1385).

- At least 11 cables were slightly redacted (e.g.: #07PARIS322).

- 138 cables published by Lebanese Al-Akhbar paper but not yet put into WL.

- 33 cables disclosed by the British paper The Guardian but not yet in WL.

See THIS MIRROR to view all 13 deleted cables, 11 cables in their previously unredacted form, and 133 cables not yet officially released by Wikileaks (they can be easily found along the column on the left).

I originally found this info on Cryptome, which is currently undergoing another interesting investigation: Wikileaks is supposedly charging media companies for "production costs" on their material - they must "pay to play", as Cryptome puts it.

I'm currently reading through each deleted/redacted cable and chronicling differences to see if future events explain why this censorship is being done.

This whole Wikileaks thing is starting to really smell fishy!!

EDIT:

reply to post by pforkp


ZOMGGGGG

You only know about this cause WL released them in the first place. If they were really so intent on censoring, don't you think they wouldn't have released the cables that aren't online at all? Maybe there's another reason?

And a news organization/business charging money???? Whoda thunk it? That probably serves a dual purpose, one being weeding out the wheat from the chaffe. If they didnt charge money, people could break the embargo rules and face no real punishment. Not to mention every Dick, Tom, and Harry would be requesting early access.

Any chance they could be doing this to maybe save their ass a little bit knowing that mirror sites will still have them?

reply to post by FalselyFlagged

I think it's interesting/scary that they're changing and deleting information in the cables on the fly without notifying anyone. Some say that it's to "protect people's identities", but that doesn't warrant FULL PARAGRAPH redactions or deleting entire cables! Also, it's supposedly Wikileaks that is charging for media access to material, not the media themselves.

Also:

Any chance they could be doing this to maybe save their ass a little bit knowing that mirror sites will still have them?

The mirror sites exist to protect Wikileaks from a permanent takedown, not to act as a replacement of information. Most people will source from Wikileaks alone as long as it's up, making the info on mirrors irrelevant for now. Therefore, whatever Wikileaks posts is the "true" source, the mirrors are only supposedly acting as protection.

This is becauSe wikileaks is disinfo propaganda.....

If they were so transparent they wouldn't be keeping the insurance to themselves.

They do exactly what the government does..

Lie and keep secrets from us.

Maybe Assange was 'impanted' during his 5 star prison star. Maybe he's a manchurian canidate now?

reply to post by pforkp


Wikileaks is a media organization / business, last time I checked!

Originally posted by thecinic
This is becauSe wikileaks is disinfo propaganda.....

If they were so transparent they wouldn't be keeping the insurance to themselves.

Um... How would it serve as insurance if they released it all to the public before hand???? You understand how insurance works, right? What incentive would there be not to kill him, if the info was all released?

reply to post by FalselyFlagged


i personally believe nothing will ever come on that site again unless its government approved......propaganda now, just my opinion....

I see egos, money, stolen data and media in a strange new world.

Nothing good from this.

Cryptome is useful for another view, but which is the truth?

I say keep an open mind.

I say that even Reuters have fallen down this drain of late.

Reuters - you published WL stuff. What back-checking did you do? Could you do?
Broke your own rules.

Is any of the WL stuff for real?
You don't know do you?

But you still published.

Oh dear, what a sad state of affairs for the World media.

I think Assange is a ego-crazed nutter, but is actually doing some good here revealing the cracks in the systems.

And those are very big flaws - political, diplomatic, legal, media, Trust.

Do I want him locked-up?
yes.

For what?
"The obvious"

Explain.
[cannot - system failure]


On balance, he's on the leading edge, but don't be a friging' hero Assange - they die.

I do not think you are a hero.
I think you have done wrong within a system which allows that.


I say pause, reflect and learn.
That takes guts.

I say go to that place.

reply to post by pforkp


Perhaps there's some chaos because JA has been in prison and not at the helm?

second

reply to post by FalselyFlagged

True, that's how insurance works. But I think the point is that this site says that it stands for transparency, represents open journalism, yaddayaddayadda... But really, it is willfully holding back a majority of their material, are actively censoring it post-release, and are charging fees for access. How can you trust and support such blatant hypocrisy? Who is behind these redactions, and why are they doing it? Who is holding all the cards, and manipulating the "truth" of information being leaked?

Originally posted by pforkp

I originally found this info on Cryptome, which is currently undergoing another interesting investigation: Wikileaks is supposedly charging media companies for "production costs" on their material - they must "pay to play", as Cryptome puts it.

FYI, there's nothing wrong with them charging a fee to fund their operations. Reuters and AP do the same, and so do many other companies offering similar services.

reply to post by thecinic


I don't think you know what "insurance" means

I myself am just sitting and waiting to see how long it is before people start waking up and realize they have been duped. I am sure because of our ego's not many will come forward and admit it when the time comes.

To any Canadians interested, I found one quote recently redacted from cable 08OTTAWA918 (the entire third paragraph was censored on Dec.14th). Here's the censored paragraph:

3. (S/NF) Responding to Dr. Cohen’s query, Judd said CSIS had responded to recent, non-specific intelligence on possible terror operations by “vigorously harassing” known Hezbollah members in Canada. According to Judd, CSIS’ current assessment is that no attack is “in the offing” in Canada. He noted, however, that Hezbollah members, and their lawyers, were considering new avenues of litigation resulting from recent court rulings that, Judd complained, had inappropriately treated intelligence agencies like law enforcement bodies (refs A and C). The Director observed that CSIS was “sinking deeper and deeper into judicial processes,” making Legal Affairs the fastest growing division of his organization. Indeed, he added, legal challenges were becoming a “distraction” that could have a major “chill effect” on intelligence officials.

Yea. Screw the law, it shouldn't apply to intelligence agencies! Pretty scary stuff coming from the then-Director of CSIS.

reply to post by pforkp


I am in favor of people knowing the truth, but if I'm getting a carefully constructed and deliberately-omitted information against one group/nation and in favor of another group/nation, then I don't trust the source.

Mostly these days, I listen to what is NOT being said, not what IS being said. I read between the lines to get to the truth.

I can't say that these articles are true, or false. I'm just posting them so that you can see why I'm suspicious about J. Assange and WikiLeaks. There is so much out there regarding this matter. Here are a few I read today:

WikiLeaks "struck a deal with Israel" over diplomatic cables leaks:
www.redicecreations.com...

The WikiLeaks Agenda - The "MK Ultra" & Sex/'___' Cult Past of Julian Assange - Webster Tarpley on the Alex Jones Show:
www.redicecreations.com...

WikiLeaks Being Used to Justify "Patriot Act" Legislation For Internet:
www.activistpost.com...

Here's a juicier one that has been completely deleted (10STATE17263): a 2009 Joint Threat Assessment done by the US and Russia, where Russia outlines in detail that Iran and DPRK pose no real threat to either the US nor Russia, and that a missile defense system is not necessary. Here's a small quote:

"...While the Russians were prepared for discussions of cooperation at a strategic level on countering missile proliferation, their position remained the same: in their analysis, the missile programs of Iran and the DPRK are not sufficiently developed, and their intentions to use missiles against the U.S. or Russia are nonexistent, thus not constituting a "threat" requiring the deployment of missile defenses."

"...¶5. (S) Evgeny Zudin of the Russian Ministry of Defense gave detailed presentations on the Russian assessment of the Iranian and North Korean missile programs, and the degree to which Russia believes these programs constitute threats requiring missile defense responses. For Russia, the bottom line is that, in essence, neither program constitutes a threat at the moment or in the near future."

...Along with a detailed analysis of Iran and the DPRK's missile programs. Wouldn't want anyone questioning the smear/fear campaign against these two countries, or why the US is pushing so hard for missile defense systems!

Sigh... here are some redactions that aim to smear Kim Yong Il as unsympathetic and hostile... It's a dialogue between the DPRK's deputy foreign minister Kim Yong Il (must be a common name) and Mongolian representatives. Here are some of the quotes (the now-censored bits are bolded by me):

"VFM Kim said the DPRK is spending too much on weapons rather than on its children, but that the current reality dictates that they cannot get away from weapons for now. Kim said the DPRK is not a threat and was only interested in self-protection.

The Mongolian side counseled that recent “"provocations” (this is Sukhee’s word to poloff"; another word may have been used in the consultations) such as the missile test meant that the present situation was very fragile, and that the DPRK should be careful not to present the wrong signal. Kim agreed that the DPRK must be careful and must build confidence. The Mongolians stated that even if one has peaceful intentions, one can be seen as provocative.

Kim asked the Mongolians to support a U.S.-DPRK dialogue (Sukhee described Kim as “enthusiastic” at this point), and he stated “"there are no eternal enemies in this world.”

¶2. (S) Poloff met with MFAT Deputy Director for Asian Affairs J. Sukhee on August 12 to discuss Mongolia’'s annual bilateral consultations with the DPRK. Sukhee was present at the consultations and has been involved with Korean affairs as a diplomat since 1985. Sukhee was candid in his meetings with poloff, referring repeatedly and openly to his handwritten notes from the DPRK consultations."

OK, I can see that redactions may have been added to protect the identities of some people... But why redact positive responses from the DPRK representative?? Most confusingly for me, why redact the part about Sukhee reading "openly from his handwritten notes"?

Again, to view changes and deletions yourself, go HERE and download the torrent "Cable-Diff" (it's a bright green button). Compelling stuff!

Wiki said that there would be some parts omitted where names at risk might be involved. That is not to say that what you have given us is incorrect, but it also makes no sense in Wiki's objectives. There are a quarter of a million files yet to be released and, as you say, some MSM already have documents as yet not released, do you honestly think that any unexpurgated version will not surface somewhere, sometime. The Canadian director Judd is no longer there anyway, probably because he behaved like a cretin, and given that Canadian politicians called for assassination, and no action taken?? it is not hard to see that some of the multitude of Wiki sites could have been compromised by interested party's. So there is no point in damage limitation now, the cat is out of the bag, because someone other than Wikileaks already knows the cables content. Can you see where this is all going?