

Leaked CIA Red Cell memo on USA 'exporting terrorim' - dsplittgerber
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CIA_Red_Cell_Memorandum_on_United_States_%22exporting_terrorism%22,_2_Feb_2010

======
tptacek
_Shocking_. Some people who participate in organizations that the United
States _recognizes as terrorists_ are United States Citizens. Citizens have
helped the Taliban, have helped Islamist attacks in India, and have helped the
IRA. So: what if India or the UK decide that we don't care about those people,
but instead only the al Qaeda or IRA activities that target US assets?

There, I've summed up the new leak.

Naturally, that's not how WikiLeaks sums it up. They're not bound to the
actual text, but rather to the contours of the narrative they're trafficking
in; in that narrative, it's not random crazy Islamists or Irish Nationalists
joining terrorist causes, but rather the US "exporting" it. In the document,
the word "export" occurs only in a quoted label, and is predicated --- ' _if_
the US was _perceived_ as an "exporter of terrorism"' --- because of people's
perceptions of random crazy people in a country of 300 million people.

According to the WaPo's last investigation, 850,000 people have some form of
"Top Secret" clearance. It's a wonder everything labeled "Top Secret" isn't
leaked. This isn't even that; it's "Secret: Don't Circulate To Foreigners" (as
it concerns foreign policy and perceptions).

I think the unnamed official speaking to NBC summed this up nicely: 'This is
not exactly a blockbuster paper'.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Does anyone have a good argument as to why I should take wikileaks any more
seriously than, say, the drudge report, or the enquirer? In comparison even
BoingBoing seems like a greatly more legitimate unbiased, hard-news
organization.

~~~
dsplittgerber
With WikiLeaks you get the original documents. Please show me _any_ news
organization that provides original source documents for inspection by the
public.

Wikileaks deserves some critical commentary, granted. But comparing it to
"news organizations" like boingboing just makes it seem like it's falling out
of favor with the "internet intelligentsia".

~~~
InclinedPlane
Sure, so that makes it possible to tell when their link-bait headlines are
"not backed by evidence" (aka full of shit). However, these are confidential
sources that nobody has access to and may or may not be confirmed in public.
That moves the problem one level of indirection. How do we know if/when
wikileaks decides to make things up out of whole cloth? How do we know if/when
wikileaks' _sources_ decide to make things up?

The point I think I'm trying to make is this: what value does wikileaks bring
to the table that, say, pastebin or dropbox doesn't? Increasingly it's looking
like that value is actually _negative_. Which is important to make note of,
and disconcerting.

~~~
tptacek
I'm possibly the person on HN who is most vocal about their (current)
failings, and even I don't think they're just making things up. I do think,
however, that it was a calamitous decision for them to start editorializing.
It wasn't a small mistake; it's been _devastating_ to their credibility.

Even in a case like this, the subtexts are all wrong. Why is Wikileaks
summarizing anything about this release? Why are they playing it up anywhere?
Anyone can read it and see that it's not newsworthy (the issue of reciprocity
in extradition isn't just years old, it's _decades_ old!). It's not that any
of their sources are false; it's instead the issue that who knows what they're
_not_ publishing? Surely, nothing that hurts their narrative!

~~~
InclinedPlane
Sure, I don't believe they're making things up either, yet. But my point is,
how do we know? How can we tell?

Their editorializing makes them much more vulnerable to being gamed by people
who _are_ willing to make things up (even CBS had this problem). Again, I'm
wondering what the value-add of wikileaks is. The access? That seems very
outmoded in today's hyper-connected age.

------
sdurkin
Another big yawn from Wikileaks. This could have been written by any college
poly sci student as a B- paper.

