I’ll leave space for the possibility that one or more parts of the organization wasn’t privy to the true overarching mission and went in undesired directions. For example, there are many useful ignoramuses at USAID. Maybe Five Eyes had let WikiLeaks devolve into a hot, unmanaged mess.
They do and have done that. It’s known as a limited hangout but it’s become kind of the word of the day recently lol. It pays to play both sides so you can always come out on top somewhere, like betting half on red and half on black at roulette. Something gives but something else gains. And since the US government is both the casino and the player at the table, they win either way. Exposing their own crimes allows them to say “look we take accountability!” but the collateral murder video, for example, made a lot of noise but ultimately nothing happened about it other than Manning, the whistleblower (!), being jailed for a few years.
But nobody is saying America took accountability. Keeping the lid on would require no accountability to be taken.
Compare this to Israel for example which up until a year ago managed to rewrite history and shove all their war crimes under the table. They enjoyed a great reputation from it.
Exposing war crimeadoesn’t appear to do anything positive.
What happened after Collateral Murder except that Manning was found out and imprisoned, thereby removing a liability in the US military? What happened after the scandal at Abu Ghraib except letting Iraqis know what will happen to them if they fight or even cross paths with a US soldier?
We can also look beyond the US stuff; Wikileaks has released plenty of documents on Iran, China and Syria to name just 3 (this was their stated purpose and is pointed out in the article, wikileaks was first started to go after the enemies of the US). The point of building credibility is to then redirect sentiment to the actual target with the segment of the population that does not normally consider that target to be an enemy. Much like Jackson Hinkle is going to be doing soon imo.
Sounds like you didn’t read the article. What Assange put out didn’t have that much of an impact, and a real fed org might release some stuff on their bosses to gain legitimacy.
The motive doesn’t check out. America has no reason to pull off their own mask and shown the world their war crimes.
I’ll leave space for the possibility that one or more parts of the organization wasn’t privy to the true overarching mission and went in undesired directions. For example, there are many useful ignoramuses at USAID. Maybe Five Eyes had let WikiLeaks devolve into a hot, unmanaged mess.
They do and have done that. It’s known as a limited hangout but it’s become kind of the word of the day recently lol. It pays to play both sides so you can always come out on top somewhere, like betting half on red and half on black at roulette. Something gives but something else gains. And since the US government is both the casino and the player at the table, they win either way. Exposing their own crimes allows them to say “look we take accountability!” but the collateral murder video, for example, made a lot of noise but ultimately nothing happened about it other than Manning, the whistleblower (!), being jailed for a few years.
But nobody is saying America took accountability. Keeping the lid on would require no accountability to be taken.
Compare this to Israel for example which up until a year ago managed to rewrite history and shove all their war crimes under the table. They enjoyed a great reputation from it.
Exposing war crimeadoesn’t appear to do anything positive.
It’s the oldest trick in the book. It means that people look at what you want them to see rather than what you don’t want them to see.
Not to mention that disgruntled and/or naive employees will leak things that their employer doesn’t actually want leaked.
But this is what we believe is happened for Assagne. A disillusioned employee leaked the documents to Assagne.
This was exactly what the government doesn’t want us to see. What do you believe they are using this as a cover for?
What happened after Collateral Murder except that Manning was found out and imprisoned, thereby removing a liability in the US military? What happened after the scandal at Abu Ghraib except letting Iraqis know what will happen to them if they fight or even cross paths with a US soldier?
We can also look beyond the US stuff; Wikileaks has released plenty of documents on Iran, China and Syria to name just 3 (this was their stated purpose and is pointed out in the article, wikileaks was first started to go after the enemies of the US). The point of building credibility is to then redirect sentiment to the actual target with the segment of the population that does not normally consider that target to be an enemy. Much like Jackson Hinkle is going to be doing soon imo.
Sounds like you didn’t read the article. What Assange put out didn’t have that much of an impact, and a real fed org might release some stuff on their bosses to gain legitimacy.