Wikileaks: Who are "THEY"?

A few thoughts today regarding the whole "Wikileaks" stupidity.

First of all. It's interesting that they don't pass on who their sources are.

Only because their whole "raison d'etre" is:

..the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history.

But of course they don't tell you how they get their information.

Transparency is for government, but not for Wikileaks.  We're supposed to just "trust them".

Don't trust the people you elect, but trust some foreign private corporate presence.

Could you imagine if the controlling mind of Wikileaks was British Petroleum or Exxon?

Would we just trust them?  Hardly.

But Wikileaks is different, we're told.  They are fighting "against the man".

But are they trustworthy and honest?

It appears that, like these major corporations, Wikileaks is pulling in a lot of money, and is, ironically, less than forthcoming in disclosing how much it gets and from whom.

So.

I can review financial records for Exxon, for British Petroleum, for most democratic governments.. but I can't review where Wikileaks gets it's money and what they do with it.

Does that not concerns you?  It should.

This past month, the company handling Wikileaks donations terminated it's relationship with Wikileaks, advising that they did so "to comply with money laundering or other investigations conducted by government authorities, agencies or commissions."


Sound cryptic? 

It get's better.

With Exxon or BP, I can tell you who is on their Board of directors.

Wikileaks?  Not so much.

Wikileaks assures us that the information they leak is vetted to assure that no lives are put at risk, and to assure us that this is the case.. well, we are to just trust "them".


Who are "them"? Well, we don't really know.

Apparently, their "advisory board" was determined to be more or less fictitious.


According to Mother Jones Magazine, Wikileaks has published false statements regarding who is on their "advisory board":

But WikiLeaks doesn't readily take no for an answer. When I contacted the impressive figures listed on its advisory board, some didn't know they were mentioned on the site or had little idea how they got there. Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, a former representative of the Dalai Lama, recalls getting a cryptic email from WikiLeaks a few years ago, but says he never agreed to be an advisor. Noam Chomsky is listed as a volunteer administrator of the WikiLeaks Facebook group. This is news to him. "I know nothing about it," he says.

When "Threat Level" contacted Julian Assange and asked him to respond to the allegations that the funding for Wikileaks were being misused:

Assange declined to discuss the organization’s budget with Threat Level.

So.

The people who are all about "telling it like it is", and afraid to tell us who they are, is afraid to tell us where they get their money, and is afraid to tell us what, exactly, they are doing with it.

But it's our elected government we have to worry about.