Commentary By Ron Beasley
As I reported here Julian Assange told Forbes that his next target would be a large US Bank. Raw Story reports that in October of 09 Assange said:
"At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives," Assange told the technology site Computer World in an article published on October 9, 2009.
The Wikileaks chief continued: "Now how do we present that? It's a difficult problem. We could just dump it all into one giant Zip file, but we know for a fact that has limited impact. To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it."
Here is the sad reality: Can you really embarrass any of these banks? They were incompetently run, with criminally inept risk management. They blew themselves up, and exist today only due to the largesse of the taxpayer. They gratefully took all they could grab and more.
What else can you release to embarrass them?
Unless they have 5GB of video showing their CEOs engaging in bestiality, its hard to imagine Wikileaks embarrassing the big banks.
I agree that there is no way to embarrass the sociopathic banksters but it could still be a problem both for the banks and the Obama administration. The citizens with pitch forks already know the banksters are crooks and think they are responsible for their current problems. So what happens when the criminality is there in black and white in the media? Can the administration and the "Justice" Department continue to igonre it or will they be forced to go after The Masters of the Universe? This could be a bigger problem than cablegate or the Iraq and Afghanistan leaks. And even if the leaks just involve BofA will they be able to stop there? The pitchfork crowd thinks all the TBF banks are about the same.
I remember the last time there was a "Wikileaks," and it very much like this time.
ReplyDeleteNow, as then, I encountered very strong but differing opinions/perceptions about it. Some/many people explicitly support "Wikileaks" and regard it/Julian Assange as good, and others explicitly condemn it/him -but I've yet to see anyone clearly identify much less defend their reasoning. This seems strange to me, and almost makes me suspicious. What exactly is the issue here? For disclosure, I'm undecided on the issue -because I simply do not know enough to know if Wikileaks is good or bad. I'm aware that JA is accused of a sexual crime in Europe. I will say that as someone who values truth and honesty, I have at least a little suspicion and/or skepticism of advocacy of GOVERNMENT secrecy (although I understand it it necessary at least sometime). What exactly is going on with WikiLeaks and why exactly is it wrong or right? And HOW is this information being obtained? It confuses me that I hear people harshly condemning it and saying "this person should be tried for treason and executed, etc."IF a serious law has been broken, I'd expect it to be cited and used as the basis for advocating the pursuit of formal charges.Was the information leaked acquired by consent (shared/sold by those who controlled it) or stolen? I haven't seen this clearly established anywhere, which seems weird as it is clearly a significant consideration. If anyone can clarify this, I'd be grateful, thanks. I'm also VERY curious why I've yet to hear it clearly identified.
BCDR,
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the big one's so far (don't know about the coming bank doc dump), Wikileaks has gotten the information by consent...though the people who gave WL the documents would probably be convicted of treason and espionage (see, Bradley Manning).
People are conflicted because most don't understand the underlying motivation of Assange and WL. It is revolution, albeit a new sort only possible in the 21st Century. The goal here is to short-circuit the ability of the State to act freely. The State, and its private, financial arm, only operates effectively because it controls the flow of information. That is, if you accept Assange's reasoning that the modern state is both authoritarian and conspiratorial. By dumping masses of documents covering a broad range of issues into the public domain, the State theoretically loses its ability to control information flow and hence a great deal of its power.
BCDR,
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the big one's so far (don't know about the coming bank doc dump), Wikileaks has gotten the information by consent...though the people who gave WL the documents would probably be convicted of treason and espionage (see, Bradley Manning).
People are conflicted because most don't understand the underlying motivation of Assange and WL. It is revolution, albeit a new sort only possible in the 21st Century. The goal here is to short-circuit the ability of the State to act freely. The State, and its private, financial arm, only operates effectively because it controls the flow of information. That is, if you accept Assange's reasoning that the modern state is both authoritarian and conspiratorial. By dumping masses of documents covering a broad range of issues into the public domain, the State theoretically loses its ability to control information flow and hence a great deal of its power.
When I see people in the streets showing their concern and dis-satisfaction over the banks, corporations and our government, I will believe that something might happen in our favor. Til then, I have no confidence that anything will change.
ReplyDeleteWe've had plenty of black and white proof of the corruption to this point and it's had almost NO effect. Wall Street ceos are receiving all time high bonuses while the unemployment rate isn't moving anywhere fast. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518104575546542463746562.html Isn't this black and white?
Bank of america ceos have received their fair share - check what boa's lewis and moynihan left with.
No vote of confidence here.