it and tidy up. Come home, my pretties!
from http://aaronovitch.blogspot.com/2010/11/sort-of-response-to-recent-anonymous.html, 2-5 Dec 2010:
a trick (which is after all a standard bit of spy work, including adding just enough material just damaging enough to make it convincing).
leaked doesn't have gaps in it. But I don;t really know what such evidence would look like, let alone think it likely that any is going to be forthcoming.
from http://crookedtimber.org/2010/12/06/tom-slee-on-wikileaks/#comments, 6-7 Dec 2010
language and habitual circumlocution
leaker’s selection of cables (Brzezinski – as well as Akhmadi-Najad of course – has voiced some that – and it would be a standard espionage move to leak false info (and selective = false), either to promote false beliefs, or to muddy waters, or as a strawman operation (where the info is later proved false, discrediting the source). Alternatively large volumes of uninteresting info may be leaked to keeping WL busy, or to achieve a form of soft discrediting by leak-fatigue. I’m disinclined to believe that the leak was a plant on current evidence though.)
deselection of cables, if any – possibly in consultation with interested parties
8 Dec 2010
whole latest batch is anomalous. Brezhinski has suggested a plant – sincerely or not.
been mentioning this possibility on AWatch and the previous thread, and like a lot of these things, my assessment shifts from ‘actually quite plausible’ to ‘really not at all likely’, a bit like one of those shaded drawings of cubes that seem to switch from protruding to receding and back again.
the latest batch of leaks, which is alnomalous. This batch (a few specifics apart), is very much like a dataset that gives an overall
(Obviously the cables themselves are subject to this, as I’ve pointed out before – as well as being based on what the diplomats are allowed to know, there is plenty of self-censorship, selection bias, fixing evidence around the policy, etc).
differs from the standard model of whistleblowing, which is based not on a kind of quasi-statistical overview, but on single assertions which can stand alone and speak for themselves. (Obviously these could be defeated or undermined by some conceivable further evidence, but
inductive evidence, you might say.) Even the Afghan dump (or the Pentagon Papers) were of the deductive kind – the revelations were simply numerous rather than cumulative.
is not the case here, and that is a big change, which in conjunction with the concomitant unclarity of exactly what is being leaked, and (what so far appears to be) the rather convenient nature of the content for the US, provides some (perhaps rather slim, I can’t decide) grounds for suspicion about their origin.