by Michel Chossudovsky
December 13, 2010
"World bankers, by pulling a few simple
levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire
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
WikiLeaks 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
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
The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media
But there is more than meets the eye.
Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had
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:
the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political
the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH
FH recommendations for other advisory board members
general advice on funding, coallition [sic] building and
operations and political framing" (WikiLeaks Leak email exchanges, January
There is no evidence of FH follow-up support to the
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.
WikiLeaks had also entered into negotiations with several corporate
foundations with a view to securing funding. (WikiLeaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007):
The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland
"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...."
Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)
Acquiring covert funding from intelligence agencies was, according to the
email exchanges, also contemplated. (See
WikiLeaks Leak email exchanges,
At the outset in early 2007, WikiLeaks acknowledged that the project had
"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
(WikiLeaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).
WikiLeaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows:
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.
This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in a June 2010 interview in The
"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
WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New
Yorker, June 7, 2010)
Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially bring down
many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US
From the outset, WikiLeaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in
Eurasia and the Middle East was "appealing" to America's elites, i.e. it
seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives.
composition of the WikiLeaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not
to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments,
were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards
triggering "regime change" and fostering "color revolutions" in different
parts of the World.
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 London Economist has also played an
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
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
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
If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the
participation and collaboration of the corporate architects of media
WikiLeaks 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 and 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
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
For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the
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
(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."
PBS Interview; The Redacting and
Selection of WikiLeaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on
"Fresh Air" with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010).
Yet Sanger 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."
"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.
member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the
Strategy Group which regroups the likes of,
Madeleine K. Albright
former Defense Secretary William Perry
former CIA head John Deutch
the president of the World Bank, Robert. B. Zoellick
former 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).
It is worth noting that several American journalists, members of the Council
on Foreign Relations have 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
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
Friedman among others are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
(Membership Roster - Council on Foreign Relations)
the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several
US corporate media.
The Embassy and State
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, focusing on areas which would support US foreign policy
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 as
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 funneled 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
With regard to "leaked intelligence" and the coverage of Iran's alleged
nuclear weapons program, David E. Sanger has played a crucial role.
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
(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.
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,
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.
drawings presented by US State Department officials pertained to the "Wrong
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
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
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
David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with
WikiLeaks under the banner of
truth and transparency was also instrumental in the New York Times "leak" of
what Gareth Porter describes as fake intelligence.
While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media coverage,
it invalidates outright Washington's assertions regarding Iran's alleged
It also questions the legitimacy of the UN Security Council
Sanctions regime directed against Iran.
Moreover, in a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the WikiLeaks
embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the
central issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce, through media
disinformation, 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..."
- 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
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
"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
The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the Gulf States
and Saudi Arabia to several Islamic terrorist organizations, 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 channeled its support to terrorist organizations via
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. (See Michel Chossudovsky,
America's "War on
These are US sponsored covert
intelligence operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as
In this regard, the use of the WikiLeaks documents by the media tends 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 and consultation with their US
"The information came to light in the latest round of documents released
Sunday by WikiLeaks. In their communiqués 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,
Reports of this nature serve to provide legitimacy to US drone attacks
against alleged terrorist targets inside Pakistan.
The corporate media's use and interpretation of the WikiLeaks cables serves
to uphold two related myths:
Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to global
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They are
financing Islamic terrorist organizations which are intent upon attacking
the US and its NATO allies.
The CIA and the
The CIA's relationship to the US media is amply documented.
The New York
Times continues to entertain a close relationship 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 the 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
"[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.
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.
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"
In recent years, the CIA's relationship to the media has become increasingly
complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with a 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 1970s. 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
"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."
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" (GWOT) and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes.
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
War Propaganda, Global Research, January 3, 2003)
Today's corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the
why would the NYT 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 is 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
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, on balance, supported Britain's
involvement in the Iraq war. The Economist's Editor-in-Chief, John Micklethwait was a participant in the June 2010
The Economist also bears the stamp of
the Rothschild family.
Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989.
His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist's
The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The
Economist. Former Editor of The Economist (1974-86), Andrew Stephen Bower
Knight is currently Chairman of the J. Rothschild Capital Management Fund.
He is also reported to have been member of the Steering Group (1986) of the Bilderberg.
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
firm, 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:
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
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
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
In the case of WikiLeaks, the facts are contained in a data bank; 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. With regard to financial information, the release of
data pertaining to a particular bank instigated via WikiLeaks by a rival
financial institution, could potentially be used to trigger the collapse or
bankruptcy of the targeted financial institution.
All the Wiki-facts are selectively redacted, they are then "analyzed" and
interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites.
While the numerous pieces of information contained in the WikiLeaks data
bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble
to consult and scan through the WikiLeaks data bank. 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
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.,
1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to
control the Internet.
In this regard, we should also stand firm in
preventing the prosecution of Julian Assange in the US.
Note: Minor changes were
added to this article on December 14 and 26, 2010