Egypt: Wikileaks to the Rescue

The "barrier of legitimacy" is broken: a mob shouts "American agent"
as they hurl rocks at ElBaradei who most certainly is an American agent
- a trustee of the US International Crisis Group alongside George Soros.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Once again, Wikileaks provides suspiciously timed help for a globalist in need. Mohamed ElBaradei, US International Crisis Group trustee and leader of the Western-backed &trained youth movement that helped remove Hosni Mubarak from power, has been running into trouble in Egypt recently.

During the March 19th vote on Egypt's constitution, ElBaradei was attacked on his way to the polls by an angry mob calling him "an American agent." His troubles were compounded when the constitutional amendments, which ElBardei had told supporters to reject, passed by a large margin. ElBaradei of course, wanted the constitution rewritten from scratch, with a newly drafted proposal, funded by fellow ICG trustee George Soros, ready and waiting to be ramrodded through.

With ElBaradei steeped in growing political mire and dealing with rumors that he and his stooge Wael Ghonim are part of a Western plot, global news wires are now reporting a Wikileaks release painting him in an anti-American light. The 2009 cables reveal that American officials were "unhappy" with ElBaradei. The news report also includes some off-hand comments about ElBaradei's plans to reestablish ties with Tehran and his thoughts on the Middle East peace process being a "ridiculous joke."

Despite repeated claims that ElBaradei was or is an obstacle to Western interests, his "opposition" towards America over Iraq didn't forestall America's inevitable invasion, nor has it hampered operations against Iran. With ElBaradei openly a trustee of the corporate lined International Crisis Group alongside George Soros, Wesley Clark, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Richard Armitage, it's hard to believe his jabs were anything more than rhetorical fodder for his impressionable followers.

As rocks flew past ElBaradei on March 19th, one might say the "barrier of legitimacy" has been broken, just as ElBaradei helped break the "barrier of fear" surrounding Hosni Mubarak's regime. ElBaradei's image is quickly being hobbled by his deep ties to the US, his disingenuous meddling in Egyptian politics, and now his failure to sneak in his Soros-funded constitution. With a similar movement in Libya now overtly transforming into a Western invasion, ElBardei and opposition leaders across the Middle East will be fighting an uphill battle against accusations of being agents of the West - a battle the one-trick pony of Wikileaks most likely can't help fight.

In the Rest of the Region 

Perhaps sensing the momentum of the "Arab Spring" grinding to a halt, Nicolas Sarkozy of France recently cited the bombardment of Libya and the "responsibility to protect" as a warning to the remaining Arab states. In particular he directed his warning toward Syria stating that, "every ruler should understand, and especially every Arab ruler should understand that the reaction of the international community and of Europe will from this moment on each time be the same: we will be on the side of peaceful protesters who must not be repressed with violence."

Sarkozy is not hindered by the fact that Libya's opposition consisted of armed rebels from the very beginning who have been fighting Libya's government on and off with US aid for the last three decades.

Sarkozy went on to say that there is a new post-UNSC 1973 model of "world governance." This is interesting to note, as this is foreshadowed in a Brookings Institute report titled "Libya's Test of the New International Order" back in February 2011. In it, proving the primacy of international law over national sovereignty was considered being at stake in Libya and the need to intervene being essential. Indeed, as the illusion of the "Arab Spring" fades, and targeted nation-states start fighting back, more aggressive measures are being rolled out to achieve the globalists' objectives. This includes military intervention on behalf of armed rebels, torn right from the pages of Brookings' own 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report. Sarkozy's dangerous rhetoric certainly does open the door to intervention in both Syria and Iran.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Bradley Manning Now "Catatonic"; Obama ENOUGH!

Source

Ralph Lopez
War is a Crime

As Obama's crime of the destruction of Bradley Manning continues to unfold before our very eyes, Manning friend David House now tells us that over 8 months in isolation with movement and sleep restrictions placed on him have been having their intended effect.  House has told MSNBCthat by the end of January Manning appeared "catatonic"  and that he had "severe problems communicating," with it having taken House nearly 45 minutes on a recent visit to engage in any meaningful way (video below.)  House said Manning's demeanor was as "if he had just woken up and didn't know what was going on around him."   Manning was "utterly exhausted physically and mentally...it was difficult to have any kind of social engagement."

Also, a full month after Congressman Dennis Kucinich formally requested a visit, the Army has stalled on the request.

All for the crime of reporting war crimes and criminal behavior even among the highest-ranking military officials in Iraq.  

In 2005, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member [in Iraq], if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to try to stop it.”

Chase Mader writes in HuffPo that soon after deployment to Iraq, Manning:

"soon found himself helping the Iraqi authorities detain civilians for distributing “anti-Iraqi literature” -- which turned out to be an investigative report into financial corruption in their own government entitled “Where does the money go?”  The penalty for this “crime” in Iraq was not a slap on the wrist. Imprisonment and torture, as well as systematic abuse of prisoners, are widespread in the new Iraq. From the military’s own Sigacts (Significant Actions) reports, we have a multitude of credible accounts of Iraqi police and soldiers shooting prisoners, beating them to death, pulling out fingernails or teeth, cutting off fingers, burning with acid, torturing with electric shocks or the use of suffocation, and various kinds of sexual abuse including sodomization with gun barrels and forcing prisoners to perform sexual acts on guards and each other...

Like any good soldier, Manning immediately took these concerns up the chain of command.  And how did his superiors respond?  His commanding officer told him to “shut up” and get back to rounding up more prisoners for the Iraqi Federal Police to treat however they cared to..."

Manning also found a video and an official report on American air strikes on the village of Granai in Afghanistan’s Farah Province(also known as “the Granai massacre”). According to the Afghan government, 140 civilians, including women and a large number of children, died in those strikes.  

War crimes?  What war crimes?  This is the point of view of the Pentagon as it destroys Bradley Manning.  

On the Haditha killings (found to be "collateral damage" by the Army despite an American officer's unearthing and handing up the chain of command a video showing close up bullet wounds) a recent Counterpunch article by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis recounts:

“ Consider what happened to the U.S. soldiers who, over a period of hours – not minutes – went house to house in the Iraqi town of Haditha and executed 24 men, women and children in retaliation for a roadside bombing.  I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head,” said one of the two surviving eyewitnesses to the massacre, nine-year-old Eman Waleed. “Then they killed my granny." Almost five years later, not one of the men involved in the incident is behind bars. And despite an Army investigation revealing that statements made by the chain of command “suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives,” with the murder of brown-skinned innocents considered “just the cost of doing business,” none of their superiors are behind bars either."

Massacres of civilians in retaliation for IEDs seems to have been standard fare in Iraq. Ethan McCord says his unit was ordered to engage in "360 rotational" fireand "kill every mother&* in the street" in the event of an IED. The officer who gave the order was Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, "the lost Kauz" who is featured in David Finkel's book "The Good Soldiers." Col. K is also the executive officer who led the first investigation into the death of Pat Tillman.

Josh Stieber, a McCord unit-mate who also witnessed the order, said the logic was to get residents to be "pro-active" in preventing the planting of roadside bombs. Brass knew that the people in the houses nearest probably saw it planted and didn't say anything.

Stieber on Antiwarradio.com:

"Yeah, it was an order that came from Kauzlarich himself, and it had the philosophy that, you know, as Finkel does describe in the book, that we were under pretty constant threat, and what he leaves out is the response to that threat. But the philosophy was that if each time one of these roadside bombs went off where you don't know who set it ... the way we were told to respond was to open fire on anyone in the area, with the philosophy that that would intimidate them, to be proactive in stopping people from making these bombs ..."

Now nine Afghan children have been killed after what the Army says was mistaken identity after a nearby rocket attack on American forces.  These boys could have been the boys some on this site got to know well in the New Year's Global Call for Peace (they weren't, but they were just as precious.)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates once said people like Bradley Manning have "blood on their hands" for releasing documents which might identify Afghan informants.  But look down Robert, and don't flinch.  They are dripping.

Commander-in-Chief Obama, order Bradley Manning released!

The White House
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Webform for email: www.whitehouse.gov/contact

You can also comment on the WH FaceBook page.  

Also demand your congressman speak up and castigate this administration for the treatment of Bradley Manning, leave a voicemail if it is after-hours (24/7):
Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

January 3: Psychologists for Social Responsibility write an open letter highlighting the severely deleterious effects on the psychological well-being

January 24: Amnesty International called on US authorities "to alleviate the harsh pre-trial detention conditions of Bradley Manning"

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:

Delivered by FeedBurner

WikiLeaks: U.S. Punished Costa Rica For Not Signing Covert Immunity Agreement

Anthony Freda Illustration

Michael Edwards
Activist Post

Like a mafia strongman who kneecaps you, then threatens you not to tell anyone or it will only get worse next time, the United States slashed support to Costa Rica after the Kentucky-sized country failed to grant immunity to U.S. soldiers and American citizens in the International Criminal Court.

WikiLeaks is once again at center stage in bringing to light government intrigue that has remained undercover for years.  Apparently, even the smallest countries are not immune.  According to the cables, between the years of 2004-2006, the U.S. imposed undeclared sanctions on Costa Rica totaling upwards of $400,000 annually, according to Costa Rica's largest newspaperThe Nation (La Nación).

Although these cables are a bit dated, the news of U.S. coercion remains relevant as 46 U.S. Coast Guard ships and 27 US Navy vessels are parked in Costa Rican waters as part of ongoing operations against drug trafficking.  The 10-year agreement involving 7,000 U.S. Marines was signed by former Costa Rica President, Oscar Arias, where the U.S. reportedly pays Costa Rica $300,000 per month to occupy its waters.
The $400,000 per year of withheld funds was part of an overall $40 million pool that the United States established for the implementation of free trade and security agreements with Central American countries.  In Costa Rica's case, this money would be spent on training to improve environmental and labor conditions as part of NAFTA, and now CAFTA, implementation.  Furthermore, the funds would also have been used to train and prepare police and the Costa Rica Coast Guard to combat drug trafficking.


However, in order to receive the funds, Costa Rica would have had to betray one of its core principles of sovereignty; namely, that it would sign on to a treaty known as "Article 98" that would grant immunity to the U.S. in the International Criminal Court at The Hague, in the Netherlands.

Costa Rica is actually a founding member of the ICC and is widely regarded as "The Switzerland of Central America" for its policies of neutrality and lack of a formal military.  Unlike the United States, which increasingly appears to have become a de facto dictatorship through executive orders and corporate ownership of politicians, Costa Rica's Democratic Republic still has its checks and balances firmly in place.  There was simply no way for Costa Rica to sign such an agreement, since its Legislative Assembly would need to have approved its execution.  The United States was not deterred: WikiLeaks cables reveal that the U.S. ambassador at the time, Mark Langdale, pushed strongly for some alternative agreement that would circumvent the Congress. 

What is most disturbing about the situation in Costa Rica is just how entrenched U.S. policies of flat-out extortion -- or bullying, if you prefer -- really are.  And they admitted it in the cables.  Langdale stated it bluntly in 2005:  "Costa Rica is paying an increasingly large price for not signing on to Article 98."

Another similar case of colonial bullying directed at Costa Rica was exposed in September, 2010. Christina Tobin, founder and chair of The Free and Equal Elections Foundation, announced details of her meeting with Costa Rica Vice President, Alfio Piva, and Founder and President of Costa Rica Libertarian Party (Partido Movimiento Libertario), Otto Guevara, in regards to drug policy.  According to Guevara, "If Costa Rica legalizes marijuana, the United States would stop sending funding and cut off agricultural exports to the United States."

Tobin clearly defined the colonial nature of such pressures echoed in the WikiLeaks revelations: "It’s despicable that the United States has such ‘authority’ over a sovereign nation such as Costa Rica,” Tobin said. “There’s a lot we can learn from Costa Rica, nonetheless the U.S. government continues to bully other countries to achieve its objectives, a hopelessly undemocratic tactic to international policy.”

Should we really wonder, then, why the world functions the way it does?  Costa Rica, a country of 4 million people with no military was one of only 12 who refused to sign Article 98 vs 102 countries that took the U.S. payoff.  Other more corrupt countries such as Guatemala pocketed millions by accepting.  Perhaps this is the clearest example yet of the price of independence.  No wonder the U.S. has a history of installing and propping up dictators throughout the world; just like petty thugs, when the mafia boss comes calling they are only too eager to give the correct answer.

Sources for this story:

La Nación: http://www.nacion.com/2011-03-14/Investigacion/NotasDestacadas/Investigacion2711020.aspx?Page=10#comentarios

Free and Equal: http://www.freeandequal.org/2010/09/christina-tobin-releases-details-of-her-meeting-with-costa-rica-vice-president-alfio-piva-and-libertarian-party-founder-otto-guevara/

**Special thanks to Scott Oliver from We Love Costa Rica for translation**

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

How the So-Called Guardians of Free Speech Are Silencing the Messenger

WikiLeaks Screenshot/AFP image

John Pilger
Truthout 

As the United States and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar. Colonel Gaddafi is "delusional" and "blood-drenched" while the authors of an invasion that killed a million Iraqis, who have kidnapped and tortured in our name, are entirely sane, never blood-drenched and once again the arbiters of "stability."

But something has changed. Reality is no longer what the powerful say it is. Of all the spectacular revolts across the world, the most exciting is the insurrection of knowledge sparked by WikiLeaks. This is not a new idea. In 1792, the revolutionary Tom Paine warned his readers in England that their government believed that "people must be hoodwinked and held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other." Paine's "The Rights of Man" was considered such a threat to elite control that a secret grand jury was ordered to charge him with "a dangerous and treasonable conspiracy." Wisely, he sought refuge in France.

The ordeal and courage of Paine is cited by the Sydney Peace Foundation in its award of Australia's human rights gold medal to Julian Assange. Like Paine, Assange is a maverick who serves no system and is threatened by a secret grand jury, a malicious device long abandoned in England, but not in the United States. If extradited to the US, he is likely to disappear into the Kafkaesque world that produced the Guantanamo Bay nightmare and now accuses Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks' alleged whistleblower, of a capital crime.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLES:
Why is Hillary Not Defending the Rights of Saudis to Protest?
Obama's 6 Hypocritical Guidelines for Peaceful Protest

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

The revolution is here, thanks to WikiLeaks

Love him or hate him, Julian Assange helped spark the ouster of one dictator in Tunisia, followed closely by another in Egypt. It was a diplomatic cable exposed by WikiLeaks describing the corruption of Tunisia’s regime that triggered protests. From Tunisia, the protests spread to Egypt. But without the specialized service WikiLeaks provides to whistle-blowers, the world would not have seen the U.S. diplomatic cables.

Yes, without social media, Twitter and cell phones the people of Tunisia and Egypt would have had more trouble. Modern media made some difference. However, revolutions are not new. The Bolsheviks had no Internet, nor did the American colonies, nor did the French who overthrew Louis XVI, nor Cromwell when he overthrew the king of England. So we should not overstate the means and ignore the message. Revolutions are launched by ideas and information. They do not happen because of technologies that disseminate information.

Take a look around the world. Our nation is still hip deep in two wars costing more than $1 trillion. How ironic to see a bit of key information made available to the public sparking more change than our $1.1 trillion has in nearly a decade. What WikiLeaks sparked cost the United States nothing in treasure or lives of our people. Certainly it is possible that Egypt may slide backward into a different dictatorship and that might cost us in the future. Revolutionary times are fluid. But there is little we can do about that, and transparency will not make it easy.

Like or despise him, Assange has marked our globe. WikiLeaks is an idea that is virtually beyond the reach of governments. Historians will look back at this time as a turning point and speak of the world before and after WikiLeaks. If WikiLeaks gets shut down, if Assange is imprisoned for years, the specialization he pioneered will continue. Martyrdom will only carve his legacy in stone.

Men and women have wanted to change the world by speaking secrets to power for a long time. I knew the daughter of “Deep Throat” in my younger years, though I was unaware he was. In large and small ways, the world has been shaped by disclosure of secrets for millennia. This is not new. What is new is that such secrets are now so easy to share.

Since the American system was founded on transparency, decency and good conduct, our system can stand up to disclosure of secrets. It may anger us. It may rock our institutions sometimes.

For instance, we have yet to see smoking gun documents about our banking sector from WikiLeaks. Based on other materials, I think the corruption and malfeasance of our financial sector will prove Bernie Madoff a penny-ante hustler by comparison. But when our institutions are rocked, this is healthy for us. We were founded on this idea.

Dictatorships cannot survive the WikiLeaks future. We can, and it will make us better. We need to accept this new reality regardless of whether we like it or not. Not embracing it is to take the path of Marie Antoinette’s response to the French Revolution. By embracing it, we will be able to guide our destiny.

.

by Brian Hanley

What Was All the Gossip About?

Now that some of the furor over Julian Assange and WikiLeaks has calmed down, it helps to untangle even a small strand of the web of intrigue surrounding the release of U.S. diplomatic cables. One of the themes we heard these past several months was that most of the cables are mere cocktail party "gossip." This phrase is often used to downplay their significance and to denigrate any public value WikiLeaks may provide as a safe harbor for whistleblowers.

Thus we see similar headlines all over the world: "Wikileaks 'Gossip' Merely Annoying in Latin America," Mario Osava, Inter Press Service, Dec. 13, 2010; "Good Gossip, and No Harm Done to U.S.," Albert R. Hunt, Bloomberg News, Dec. 5, 2010, syndicated in the New York Times; "Raila [Odinga] dismisses WikiLeaks reports as gossip," Carol Gakii and Kendagor Obadiah, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, Dec. 10, 2010; "WikiLeaks: Gossip on a global level," Rabia Ashfaque, Express Tribune Pakistan Blog, circa Dec. 10, 2010; "WikiLeaks: Much ado over idle chat," Korea Herald editorial, Dec. 17, 2010.

So where did this idea come from? Why has it crystallized in so many minds as a convenient explanation? The "gossip" diagnosis is portrayed as the commonsense response, and this alone is reason to beware. We live in an era of information warfare, marked by proliferation of secrecy and the agents who sustain it. Common sense is no longer credible when it can be so easily provided by a third party.

Take for example the CIA Red Cell Memorandum entitled "Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough," a document leaked to WikiLeaks in early 2010. The first section pretty much sums it up: "Public Apathy Enables Leaders to Ignore Voters." It is painful to witness such brash condescension for the democratic values our troops die to protect, and it is pathetic how the CIA values apathy as a means to sustain an unpopular policy. Only a pathological detachment from life and death consequences could allow them to uphold this charade.

And for those moments when apathy is not enough and war opposition becomes real, the Red Cell Memo suggests a handful of tactics for massaging European publics, tailored to the unique cultural weaknesses of each nation.

The mission’s "multilateral and humanitarian aspects" are recommended as key selling points for German audiences, and a dose of fear is thrown in for good measure: "messages that illustrate how a defeat in Afghanistan could heighten Germany’s exposure to terrorism, opium, and refugees might help to make the war more salient to skeptics."

The French media strategy calls for stirring up guilt related to civilians and women: "The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls' education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France's largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties." The irony wafts like smoke from a Gauloise when we consider the controversy over headscarves in French public schools.

But the real sneakiness here is the way that ethical values are used to legitimize continuation of the war. Of course everyone wants Afghan women and children to live happy, safe, and fulfilling lives. But good news in the service of a democratically disfavored policy sows confusion and helps apathy proliferate. Policy Innovations, in fact, has run great articles over the years on Afghan women, children, and education because it's our business to tell success stories of innovation in development. And that's exactly where the CIA logic breaks down: There are women and children who need good health and education all over the world. Just because some of them happen also to be in Afghanistan doesn't mean that the United States and its allies can retroactively justify a 10-year occupation based on their fates.

This CIA memo preceded the diplomatic cable release but it speaks to a major issue that WikiLeaks has brought to the surface: We can't go on conducting international diplomacy with hypocrisy, cynicism, and dissimulation as if somehow people of different nations live on different planets and aren't listening. Or as Slavoj Zizek writes in the London Review of Books, "We can no longer pretend we don’t know what everyone knows we know." An age of appearances is over.

PHOTO CREDIT: Paco Rives Manresa (CC).

WikiLeaks chief blasts Chinese Internet censorship

LONDON, Thursday 13 January 2011 (AFP) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has blasted China as the "technological enemy" of his whistleblower website because of its aggressive Internet censorship, in comments published Thursday.

Assange has enraged the United States with his site's release of leaked diplomatic cables, and the Australian's defence team believe efforts are under way to send him to the US where they claim he could face the death penalty.

But China, with its vast Internet censorship system known as the "Great Firewall", was the site's most feared foe in cyberspace, the 39-year-old told Britain's New Statesman magazine.

"China is the worst offender" when it comes to censorship, said Assange, who is currently in Britain fighting attempts to extradite him to Sweden over claims of sexual assault.

"China has aggressive and sophisticated interception technology that places itself between every reader inside China and every information source outside China.

"We've been fighting a running battle to make sure we can get information through, and there are now all sorts of ways Chinese readers can get on to our site."

China's system of censorship is designed to filter out any information deemed sensitive or politically harmful by the country's Communist government.

Social networking site Facebook, video-sharing giant YouTube and microblogging site Twitter are among those blocked by Chinese censors.

In the interview Thursday, conducted by veteran journalist John Pilger who is a prominent supporter of the Australian hacker, Assange also claimed he had files on media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

"If something happens to me or to WikiLeaks, 'insurance' files will be released," Assange was cited as saying.

"There are 504 US embassy cables on one broadcasting organisation and there are cables on Murdoch and News Corp," without going into more detail on what they contained.

Assange insists that attempts to extradite him to Sweden are politically motivated and linked to WikiLeaks' activities.

He has been living at the country estate of a friend in eastern England since being released on bail on December 16, nine days after his arrest by British police on a Swedish warrant.

His defence team have argued that if he is sent to Sweden he could then be extradited to the US and there was a "real risk" he could face the death penalty.

The whistleblowing website has also released classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US soldier Bradley Manning is in military custody in the United States awaiting trial for having allegedly obtained and leaked the cables.

A US court has reportedly subpoenaed the Twitter accounts of four WikiLeaks supporters as part of a criminal investigation into the leaks.

Wise up to WikiLeaks, British government warned

LONDON, Friday 31 December 2010 (AFP) -- Britain's freedom of information watchdog warned ministers Friday that the WikiLeaks revelations meant they can no longer assume they are operating in private.

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said that rather than "clamming up", ministers needed to "wise up" to the fact that almost any official communication could potentially be made public.

"We are strongly of the view that things should be published," he said, according to The Guardian newspaper.

"Where you're open things will not be WikiLeaked. Whatever view you take about WikiLeaks -- right or wrong -- it means that things will now get out. It has changed things. I'm saying government and authorities need to factor it in.

"Be more proactive, publishing more stuff, because quite a lot of this is only exciting because we didn't know it.

"You can't un-invent WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is part of the phenomenon of the online, empowered citizen... these are facts that aren't going to go away. Government and authorities need to wise up to that."

The whistle-blowing website has released hundreds of thousands of secret US documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq plus a slew of secret diplomatic cables, sparking an angry response in Washington.

Graham said he was against the indiscriminate leaking of information.

"Freedom of information accepts that there are some things where you need to strike a balance. The free for all says isn't this exciting, we didn't know it -- never mind the casualties," he said.

The information commissioner said too many officials were still operating as if they were governing "in private", and ought to be more transparent.

"If we were much better about being open and upfront; if all of us just accept that this is the people's information and 99.9 percent of it should be out there in all its tedium, you wouldn't have WikiLeaks."