You may have read in the media (the Guardian, for example) that Cryptome.org has claimed WikiLeaks.org is a ‘C.I.A. front’. This comes from a quote by John Young of Cryptome in an email from 2007 and Cryptome says the reporting of this is ‘lacking context’.
Cryptome is also saying this:
‘Characterisitcally, none of the authoritative ignoramouses quoting Young to smear Wikileaks talked to Young to get an update, haven’t studied much Wikileaks material beyond the headlines, and would not stoop to the hard-labor of reading Cryptome. Cryptome attacked the Mother Jones smear on 8 April:
“The smears of Wikileaks are becoming excessive. Wayne Madsen has led the charge, now others are joining the nastiness. Mother Jones, of all muckracking mags which should know better, has published a particularly offensive smear of Julian Assange, cherry-picking remarks from those interviewed who surely said more than the article conveys.”‘
Cryptome spoke with Julian Assange by telephone on 11 April to offer support against the attacks on him and Wikileaks for releasing the Reuters staff murder video. In several recent interviews (one yesterday) Cryptome has stated Wikileaks is an exemplary success at getting banned information to the public and deserves wide emulation, with hundreds of sites needed to do what it does and to help guard against its smear and shutdown as a singular target. Also, that there are dozens if not hundreds of web sites providing information not available through self-anointed “reputable” media. The outrage Wikileaks has provoked indicates it is doing exactly what needs to [be] done to demolish the chokepoints of managed information flow by authoritative sources — government, commerce, educational, religious, individual — who peddle bombastic “context,” “broader views,” “verification,” “authentication,” “reputability,” and the current favorite, “sources not authorized to speak” a comical variation on the spy’s “if I told you what I know I would have to kill you,” then spill gutloads of trivia…’
There is a highly recommended audio interview with John Young, 13 April 2010, which can be downloaded from The Corbett Report – Open Source Intelligence News (it is interview #152): ‘The founder of Cryptome.org and veteran publisher of suppressed documents joins us to discuss what can be learned from the Wikileaks phenomenon, including the ways that information leaks can themselves be manipulated. We also discuss corporate complicity in government surveillance of the internet.’
See also:
The Cryptome-WikiLeaks emails from 2007. Now republished 12 December 2010 with the introduction, ‘It is often reported that John Young accused Wikileaks during its formation of being associated with the CIA and/or George Soros. Not correct…’
John Young interviewed by cnet, 20 July 2010 (critical of WikiLeaks but not accusatory).
Cryptome is told that Soros does not support WikiLeaks, Cryptome August 2010.
Letter to John Young from the CIA about WikiLeaks, 25 October 2010.
John Young asked and responds to the question: ‘…why did you turn so suddenly and sharply against WL?’ (i.e. in the 2007 emails), Cryptome 12 December 2010, bottom of page.
Our original Blather article, ‘Wikileaks: Surveillance, Suspicion and a Mysterious Video‘, Blather.net 5 April 2010.
John Young might support Wikileaks but it doesn’t change the fact that he charged that it was a CIA front supported by George Soros when he left the organization in 2007. The Soros connection is definitely shown, and also red flags are raised by the “rouge†Wikileaks being trumpeted by the most controlled of the establishment media ( even before the recent video. )
A very good interview with a written description is here.. http://newsofinterest.tv/audio_pages/aj_madsen_2010_04_01.php
Was it really a ‘charge’? John Young says he has been quoted out of context. In 2007, WikiLeaks wanted to raise $5 million and Young said that only the CIA or Soros could provide that kind of money, and he wanted nothing to do with it. That’s the ‘charge’. They never raised $5 million. Wayne Madsen is jumping to conclusions, I believe, but I’ve linked to his conspiracy theory before, for those readers who want to delve into it. I don’t need to watch him repeat it to Alex Jones.
I think it is worth adding John Young has said he does NOT KNOW the identity of the ‘wikileaks insider’ — this is the major problem with his previous claims, he speculated its quite possibly it is someone attempting to sabotage the organisation.
http://cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-clarify.htm